NPD May 2009

[RancidLunchmeat]

Because it's not doing well. It's doing better than Sony and still doing worse than Nintendo. That's firmly 2nd place.

You must be using a different definition of the word 'well' than the one I am currently accustomed to.

Would you provide us with your definition of the word?

Because the 360's performance this generation can so far be easily classified somewhere between 'outstanding' and 'well'.

Of course, that's using commonly agreed upon definitions of the words...

 

[RobertR1]

Top 20 in the house:

No idea why CoD4 jumped up. Go Halo

 

[groper]

Why would that happen?

Well, wii have lost almost 60% (57.1) of its May-related sales.
Hypothetically speaking , If we apply a similar scenario for the December of this year, then we will have...:

X360...1.353.600
wii.........924.500

I don't say that this is very likely to happen , just that it doesn't look Impossible anymore.

 

[obonicus]

You must be using a different definition of the word 'well' than the one I am currently accustomed to.

Would you provide us with your definition of the word?

Same as yours, but no blinders?

Because the 360's performance this generation can so far be easily classified somewhere between 'outstanding' and 'well'.

How, exactly? By beating Sony? Because that's what most of these 'MS is doing great' arguments focus around. But Sony's doing poorly, so... huh. By making money? Well, they are certainly doing better there, but not particulary well, either. Are they doing better than last-gen? Yeah, sure, but is that what doing between 'outstanding and well' means to you? Then what's Nintendo doing? Supercalifragilisticexpialidociously? Or is the fact that E&D is actually in the black what makes them sit between 'outstanding and well'? Then I guess, again, that Nintendo has always done between 'outstanding and well' -- which doesn't make those descriptors you use really mean much.

 

[obonicus]

Well, wii have lost almost 60% (57.1) of its May-related sales.
Hypothetically speaking , If we apply a similar scenario for the December of this year, then we will have...:

X360...1.353.600
wii.........924.500

I don't say that this is very likely to happen , just that it doesn't look Impossible anymore.

Okay, yeah, I get you, it could happen.

 

[TheChefO]

How, exactly? By beating Sony?

Well, that is in and of itself, a massive win.


Proof.

But aside from that, Nintendo has removed itself from the traditional gaming competition.

In that, Microsoft is now First.

This isn't to discount the achievement Nintendo has done with Wii, but regular gamers have flocked to xb360. As you said, they are not competing for the same gamers, but Sony and MS are. Between these two, MS is bringing in traditional gamers significantly more than Sony. Proof is in the software sales.

xb360 not only has sold significantly more software, it has forced or encouraged developers to support the platform with the widest variety of traditional games and franchises.



If MS can somehow merge this non-gamer (Wii-type) and the hardcore on the same platform, they will have a very good chance to lead before this gen is over.

Personally, I think this success could be achieved by MS with two "platforms", but I won't get into that with you in this thread.

 

[obonicus]

Well, that is in and of itself, a massive win.


Proof.

I'm sorry, but I have to be frank and I might even get in trouble for it. That's the biggest pile of fanboy drek I've ever seen on this board. What does the opinion of a bunch of forum posters have to do with Microsoft's success or not? The console wars don't exist.

But aside from that, Nintendo has removed itself from the traditional gaming competition.

In that, Microsoft is now First.

No, and no. Microsoft is #2. Nintendo is #1. You don't get to say 'oh, well, let's shift the goalposts THIIIIIIS much' and then claim victory. Why not go by MS' earlier metric of 'first to 10 million', if we're being completely arbitrary?

This isn't to discount the achievement Nintendo has done with Wii, but regular gamers have flocked to xb360. As you said, they are not competing for the same gamers, but Sony and MS are. Between these two, MS is bringing in traditional gamers significantly more than Sony. Proof is in the software sales.

That's not the point you should be trying to make. What establishes MS' superiority over Sony is their ability to sell more consoles every single month. Software sales on charting software (and honestly, we've had this discussion a million times) cut pretty evenly across install-bases (edit: for 3rd party software, clearly), with exceptions here and there.

But Nintendo is ahead of everyone here. No, they don't sell the same sort of games, but it's not like every title on a Wii top 10 is Wii Sports. They have many many million-sellers. They're catering to the 'mom' audience, but also to a younger audience of, yes, gamers. Nintendo has become, again, the company the mainstream thinks about when they think videogames. Sony's the big loser here, no doubt, but second place comes right below first.

Going 'oh, but they don't count' is shifting the goalposts a bit too much even for the internet.

 

[mrcorbo]

How, exactly? By beating Sony? Because that's what most of these 'MS is doing great' arguments focus around.

Yes, that's exactly why.

The 360 is the fulfillment of MS's long-held ambitions to control a content gateway in the living room and the ever-expanding range of services offered by the 360 is exactly the kind of thing that MS have been trying to achieve since the WebTV days. Since most are aware that the whole reason MS started the XBOX program was to prevent Sony (OK here's where beating Sony comes in) from getting into exactly the position that they now find themselves in and since Nintendo doesn't compete here ( yet?) the fact that they are beating Sony quite handily in install base of "boxes able to sell you stuff" is a pretty big deal.

 

[obonicus]

Yes, that's exactly why.

The 360 is the fulfillment of MS's long-held ambitions to control a content gateway in the living room and the ever-expanding range of services offered by the 360 is exactly the kind of thing that MS have been trying to achieve since the WebTV days. Since most are aware that the whole reason MS started the XBOX program was to prevent Sony (OK here's where beating Sony comes in) from getting into exactly the position that they now find themselves in and since Nintendo doesn't compete here ( yet?) the fact that they are beating Sony quite handily in install base of "boxes able to sell you stuff" is a pretty big deal.

Okay, but how exactly does that translate into success when profits are scant, when they're even there? Or is that not part of MS' plans? They certainly didn't stop Sony only for the 'stopping Sony' medal, did they? Or did MS enter the content delivery market only so they could pipe in Two Minutes' [Google] Hate once everyone had one of their telescreens? Because talking about these goals without attaching any practical metric is essentially the same as talking about the console war, but with a 'content delivery' angle attached to it. We might as well give a 'stopping Sony' medal to Sony itself, they had big a hand in this success.

 

[mrcorbo]

Okay, but how exactly does that translate into success when profits are scant, when they're even there? Or is that not part of MS' plans? They certainly didn't stop Sony only for the 'stopping Sony' medal, did they? Or did MS enter the content delivery market only so they could pipe in Two Minutes' [Google] Hate once everyone had one of their telescreens? Because talking about these goals without attaching any practical metric is essentially the same as talking about the console war, but with a 'content delivery' angle attached to it. We might as well give a 'stopping Sony' medal to Sony itself, they had big a hand in this success.

Building, deploying and evangelizing a comprehensive content delivery network that is MS controlled from beginning to end has required, is requiring and will continue to require a significant investment. And If you'll remember, their most recent stated financial goal for the division was to reach annual profitability (which they met). So it looks to me that, as of right now, they are meeting their strategic goals and their financial ones.

I think you really underestimate how important digital distribution really is to MS. If they really felt they were "stopping" Sony, Redmond would replace Disneyland as the happiest place on earth. As it is, they're just happy to have a head start.

 

[obonicus]

Building, deploying and evangelizing a comprehensive content delivery network that is MS controlled from beginning to end has required, is requiring and will continue to require a significant investment. And If you'll remember, their most recent stated financial goal for the division was to reach annual profitability (which they met). So it looks to me that, as of right now, they are meeting their strategic goals and their financial ones.

I think you really underestimate how important digital distribution really is to MS. If they really felt they were "stopping" Sony, Redmond would replace Disneyland as the happiest place on earth. As it is, they're just happy to have a head start.

Maybe I am underestimating their stance, but we're again looking to near-arbitrary (and company set!) lines to establish what 'success' means, and it makes it difficult to discuss the subject when looking at actual success, such as Nintendo. We're setting a low bar and being thrilled when MS steps over it: Sony's own goals are much more modest today for the PS3. If they reach them, are they then a success as well? Do we just ignore context?

 

[Mboojigga]

Maybe I am underestimating their stance, but we're again looking to near-arbitrary (and company set!) lines to establish what 'success' means, and it makes it difficult to discuss the subject when looking at actual success, such as Nintendo. We're setting a low bar and being thrilled when MS steps over it: Sony's own goals are much more modest today for the PS3. If they reach them, are they then a success as well? [/QUOTE]

Do we just ignore context?

Pretty much if you can't see what MS goals have been and that was to simply beat Sony and they have been doing that since the start.

How many times has Sony moved the bar themselves? It all started when the famous qoute " Next Gen starts when we say it does"
Every since then it went from bragging to simply
"oh we are about strictly profit now"

All you have to do is go back to the PR comments each NPD and see how they see themselves and the changes in the goals they have set out. By the way this is the second month in a row we haven't heard from them. Unless someone has seen the response for this months NPD results.

 

[obonicus]

Pretty much if you can't see what MS goals have been and that was to simply beat Sony and they have been doing that since the start.

So their goal was to reach second place? How nice of them to let Nintendo take the lead.

How many times has Sony moved the bar themselves? It all started when the famous qoute " Next Gen starts when we say it does"
Every since then it went from bragging to simply
"oh we are about strictly profit now"

Yeah, of course Sony has done it! That's exactly what I'm saying: do we just ignore context? If we take MS' word for when they're 'succeeding', then why not go with the first to 10 million? Why not take Sony's word too, while we're at it? Kaz Hirai reassures me that everything's dandy.

The answer, in case you were wondering, is no. We don't. Talking about these measured failures as 'successes' makes it really hard to find a word to describe what Nintendo is doing. But hey, some of you folks reassure me that if I remove the console with the largest install-base, Microsoft is right on top.

All you have to do is go back to the PR comments each NPD and see how they see themselves and the changes in the goals they have set out. By the way this is the second month in a row we haven't heard from them. Unless someone has seen the response for this months NPD results.

Actually, it's not. Last month they spoke up and said something stupid about DLNA and about the PS3's value. I have no idea what Sony said this month, but they're certain to have said something.

 

[mrcorbo]

Maybe I am underestimating their stance, but we're again looking to near-arbitrary (and company set!) lines to establish what 'success' means, and it makes it difficult to discuss the subject when looking at actual success, such as Nintendo. We're setting a low bar and being thrilled when MS steps over it: Sony's own goals are much more modest today for the PS3. If they reach them, are they then a success as well? Do we just ignore context?

If success isn't achieving one's goals, then what is it? Achieving the goals someone else thinks we should? THAT's arbitrary.

 

[obonicus]

If success isn't achieving one's goals, then what is it? Achieving the goals someone else thinks we should? THAT's arbitrary.

Not at all. That's what tests are, the idea is to have a set of standards to measure others against. But I think I'm going OT here.

 

[Asher]

Okay, but how exactly does that translate into success when profits are scant, when they're even there?

Because as most know, the main goal of the Xbox was not to be a profit machine. Look at the Xbox (1).

The goal was to prevent Sony from putting a "computer" in the living room, which MS has viewed as a real threat to their dominance in the computer industry. MS doesn't genuinely concern itself with the Wii too much because the waggle industry is a "nice to have", secondary to their core concern to being the dominant living room OS provider.

Nintendo is no threat there still, even with the Wii's success. Sony is/was.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Because as most know, the main goal of the Xbox was not to be a profit machine. Look at the Xbox (1).

The goal was to prevent Sony from putting a "computer" in the living room, which MS has viewed as a real threat to their dominance in the computer industry. MS doesn't genuinely concern itself with the Wii too much because the waggle industry is a "nice to have", secondary to their core concern to being the dominant living room OS provider.

Nintendo is no threat there still, even with the Wii's success. Sony is/was.

Exactly, <modEdit> What part of 'Gaming is a secondary goal but a foot in the door' don't people understand?

Anybody who thinks MS developed the 360 because they wanted to 'rule' the gaming market or 'win the console wars' is either confused or smoking something.

MS wants to be the gateway into the living room. They want to own the SOFTWARE that controls digital distribution into households. They tried and couldn't get their software adopted without entering into the HARDWARE market, so they were forced to do so.

They don't give a DAMN about selling Xbox's. They would be FAR happier selling the SOFTWARE to both Nintendo and Sony that provided the universal digital distribution solution without ever entering into the consumer's mind.

Oh.. and by the way, their hardware SUCKS and I hope they die a glorious death.

But, that doesn't mean that they aren't doing 'WELL' by any objective standard. The 360 IS profitable, it would have been MORE profitable without the rush to market (but that probably would have cost market share), and...

well, this is the point where I'm too upset to defend them anymore because I'm too damn pissed off at this point that I have to move my PC downstairs to hook up to my HDTV so I can watch Netflix because my ELITE just RROD.

I hate them, never buy anything from them ever again, let's all just agree to leave the industry in the hands of Sony & Nintendo who at least seem to be able to manufacture hardware, and if we have to pay $600 for a PS3 so be it, as long as it doesn't break in less than 2 years.

 

[obonicus]

Because as most know, the main goal of the Xbox was not to be a profit machine. Look at the Xbox (1).

Most know this? And yes, I'm looking at the original Xbox. What about it? You mean how they killed it abruptly when it became clear that they'd never make a profit on it?

Seriously, this idea that the xbox never had to turn a profit seems like revisionism. Of course MS wanted to turn a profit! Sure, they certainly realized they would have to take heavy losses to get anywhere in the industry, but that's not the same as them never intending to make a profit. MS really isn't in the business of spending billions of dollars with no hope of ever seeing a return.

The goal was to prevent Sony from putting a "computer" in the living room, which MS has viewed as a real threat to their dominance in the computer industry. MS doesn't genuinely concern itself with the Wii too much because the waggle industry is a "nice to have", secondary to their core concern to being the dominant living room OS provider.

Nintendo is no threat there still, even with the Wii's success. Sony is/was.

So, wait. Why's MS making such a big push into the Wii's territory, then?

At this point I'm starting to believe that people are just culling these theories off forums. Yeah, MS wants your living room. Yeah, Nintendo isn't as big a threat -- except that in Japan they're already making forays into media and their box is about twice as successful as Microsoft's at being present in everyone's living room.

 

[obonicus]

What part of 'Gaming is a secondary goal but a foot in the door' don't people understand?

Anybody who thinks MS developed the 360 because they wanted to 'rule' the gaming market or 'win the console wars' is either confused or smoking something.

Certainly, because there are no console wars. Did they want to be where PS2 was last-gen and where the Wii is this-gen? Yes. Do you honestly believe that they set off to be #2?

MS wants to be the gateway into the living room. They want to own the SOFTWARE that controls digital distribution into households. They tried and couldn't get their software adopted without entering into the HARDWARE market, so they were forced to do so.

They don't give a DAMN about selling Xbox's. They would be FAR happier selling the SOFTWARE to both Nintendo and Sony that provided the universal digital distribution solution without ever entering into the consumer's mind.

I agree on software, sure. But yes, they do care about selling xboxes, now that they're in the xbox business. They didn't burn billions on a whim! It's no coincidence that the 360 followed and maybe even perfected Sony's Playstation strategy.

But, that doesn't mean that they aren't doing 'WELL' by any objective standard. The 360 IS profitable, it would have been MORE profitable without the rush to market (but that probably would have cost market share), and...

I guess we'd have to agree to disagree. It's doing better, and certainly doing better than Sony (who is doing poorly) but I have a hard time seeing an actual success there. Only if you do as TheChefO suggests and remove the Wii from the equation.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Most know this? And yes, I'm looking at the original Xbox. What about it? You mean how they killed it abruptly when it became clear that they'd never make a profit on it?

Seriously, this idea that the xbox never had to turn a profit seems like revisionism. Of course MS wanted to turn a profit! Sure, they certainly realized they would have to take heavy losses to get anywhere in the industry, but that's not the same as them never intending to make a profit. MS really isn't in the business of spending billions of dollars with no hope of ever seeing a return.

<modEdit>

If you believe that MS ever believed they would make a profit on the Xbox, or that their primary goal with the Xbox was to be a profitable enterprise then you seriously need to go do some reading and look up some historical facts.

I'll give you the fact that MS didn't intend to suffer the degree of losses that they did with the Xbox, but to say that MS ever entered into the console market with the idea that the Xbox would be profitable is chasing the end of a rainbow.

MS knew well and good they'd never PROFIT from the Xbox, the only question was how much they would LOSE compared to the inroads they would make.

It's clear by the 360's success (even with the RROD issues that mean they should all DIE A HORRIBLE AND PAINFUL DEATH covered in honey with ANTS and SCORPIONS eating their flesh bit by bit), that it was based upon the Xbox's success with 'hardcore' gamers and the success of the community that was established through the Xbox with Live!

In fact, I'd say that so far in this generation, the main selling point and the keystone of the success of the 360 is LIVE! and that was achieved from the foundation that was built by the original Xbox.

I don't really know how you argue with that, actually.

But hey.. I'm willing to read your rebuttal.