Was MS launching XBox a good idea? *spawn

[Dregun]

I don't think Sony's inclusion of BD had much of an impact on MS and the 360. Being first to the scene was very important to Microsoft and it paid off in my opinion enough to warrant the RROD losses they incurred.

MS used that lead to really build the Xbox brand, honestly it wasn't much of a brand before the 360 and if it didn't lauch first the PS3 would have stomped all over it. Speaking of brands in my opinion Xbox SAVED Microsoft's image, at the time MS was ready to release the original xbox they were catching a bunch of heat from consumers and critics.

Microsoft is not the same company with the same image they were 10 years ago, Vista would have been a dagger to Microsofts credibility far more then it was. MS had the image of greed and monopoly practices that kept them in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

So for me, I chalk up the 8billion lost on rebuilding their brand image and in that sense I think it was money well spent.

 

[Barso]

I agree Dregu, they went from the colossal black xbox to the streamlined xbox360 in one generation.
They are now a household name with the brand and kinect.
Just like the English premiership football teams, it's amazing what having so much money can do for a company. You can take risks and test the marketplace like no other company can do.

 

[acaeus]

I don't think Sony's inclusion of BD had much of an impact on MS and the 360. Being first to the scene was very important to Microsoft and it paid off in my opinion enough to warrant the RROD losses they incurred.

I thought the BD inclusion was the number #1 factor for delaying the PS3. Unless the info is incorrect.

 

[bomlat]

They lost "money" from the Xbox project, but they made high revenues, and gained a positive image feedback that we cannot calculate.
Now 50 millions family have an Xbox, and Live is generating more profits every year...
I wouldn't call it a dumb move.

You mixing up the "doing bad" with the "doing nothing"

The question:if you invest the same amount of money example into a PC gaming platform ,then what could be the return on investment?
Or if you stay on the dreamcast-style path software provider path?

Because currently the return on investment is in the red territory.
There is image and so on,but is it the best and the cheapest way to get that?

I mean,I can build very good reputation by simply handling put free money.But is that the best way to do that?

 

[bkilian]

You mixing up the "doing bad" with the "doing nothing"

The question:if you invest the same amount of money example into a PC gaming platform ,then what could be the return on investment?
Or if you stay on the dreamcast-style path software provider path?

Because currently the return on investment is in the red territory.
There is image and so on,but is it the best and the cheapest way to get that?

I mean,I can build very good reputation by simply handling put free money.But is that the best way to do that?

Everyone talks about the PC and PC gaming. Blah. You know what I believe is the future of PC gaming? Facebook.

I feel that give the option of a known, defined hardware platform (like PS3/360/Ipad) and a nebulous, test heavy PC platform, developers will generally select the one with the potential to get a better return on investment. The investment for PC games is much higher than Console.

I don't think the consoles are going away any time soon. For MS, the console has been a method of getting a Microsoft presence in the living room, and we're betting a lot more than just games on it's future.

Assertions that the money could have been spent making a windows gaming ecosystem are interesting, but misguided. It's not the gaming ecosystem MS is after, it's the living room. Making windows better would not have had the effect MS was trying to accomplish.

MS is now in 50 million living rooms, people are using their xbox to watch TV, to buy and rent movies, to watch netflix and listen to music. Sure, they play games on it, I suppose. But the power is that it's connected to the television, where the average family spends a significant portion of their time.

 

[Barso]

Wasn't the reason behind the xbox to stop sony gaining the major foothold in the living room?
I can remember reading an article claiming MS looked at the xbox as being a 3 horse race.
The first was to test the marketplace, the second to attempt different things and the sweetspot being the third console.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

MS originally approached Sony for inclusion in their next console (PS2). Sony declined. MS wanted a place in the digital living room ecosystem. Hence, they decided to take a gamble on the Xbox. It's certainly taken a while for it to pay off, but they always predicted it would be a long road.

With the cash that a large and very successful company like that has, you have to take chances to make money. Sometimes it pays off (Xbox brand) sometimes it doesn't (Kin) and sometimes it just remains a work in progress (Zune and Zune marketplace).

Regards,
SB

 

[dobwal]

Actually the MS will realise slowly the hard fact:the XBOX is one of the dumbest idea that they aver had

Each sold copy of the Windows is a net increase in the bottom line : each sold XB decrease the bottom line ,due to the loss on each machine (lifetime),and due to the lost windows sale

If they have ever a sane moment then instead the hardware they push for the software/service side (XBlive for the PS3 / WII/PC platform,like the Steam)

Now they lost the first position on the PC,and they are in the deep swamp in the console business.

Of course for a nerd the PS3/xb360 the most beautiful things that ever been made by the mankind.

Are you from an alternative reality in a different dimension? In my reality the first 6 months of the current fiscal years has been the best ever in terms of revenue and net profit for MS and they still have the top PC OS. And how does a Xbox sale equal a loss Windows sale? As if consoles directly compete with PCs for consumer dollars.

Sony didn't want to use MS software back before MS got into the console game, so what makes you think Sony would allowed Live on the PS3. Steam is on the PS3 because of the pressure exerted on Sony to provide more rich features in comparsion to the 360. In a hypothetical world with no 360, there is no need to put Steam on PS3.

MS has about $40 billion dollars in its war chest, which is bigger than either Apple or Google. MS can't sit on its laurels and simply rack in cash. Shareholders expect MS to invest in tech like the Xbox and Zune in order to create bigger return in an effort to drive growth.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS originally approached Sony for inclusion in their next console (PS2). Sony declined.

They also approached Nintendo from what I've read over the years, and had managed to get onto a SEGA console but SEGA pulled out of hardware.

The reasons were sound, but I think the way the marketplace has evolved has taken everyone by surprise. There isn't a box per say, but a set of services, and these are being opened up to any old device from smart phones to smart TVs to consoles and netbooks. Turns out the Magic Box wasn't ever needed. MS could have got away with doing nothing, perhaps because Sony screwed up their campaign so badly that they haven't been able to capitalise. The PS vision could ahve had the beginnings of a media network on PS2, and PS3 could have launched with full media serving and gaming and a decent web browser. So in retrospect, maybe XB was a bad idea, but it was probably also the right call at the time.

 

[makattack]

For me personally, the XBox 360 was the first Microsoft product I had ever bought. Up until then, my computers were Apple or generic PC's running Linux. My home and work is all linux now, with the 360 being the only Microsoft product in sight. Oh wait... I just got a cheap wireless MS Mouse this week. Those two are the only MS products I've ever bought for myself.

Oops... I lie. I did buy a MSDN subscription once for work -- mostly to get Visual C++ and all the documentation/libraries. (shudders from memories of working with MFC)

 

[Squilliam]

Given the value of the Xbox business, the return on investment thus far is better than sticking the money in the bank. I would say therefore that Microsoft has come out on top. Could there have been better investments? Possibly, but you'd have to make a pretty good case first to prove it.

 

[Nesh]

Actually the MS will realise slowly the hard fact:the XBOX is one of the dumbest idea that they aver had

Each sold copy of the Windows is a net increase in the bottom line : each sold XB decrease the bottom line ,due to the loss on each machine (lifetime),and due to the lost windows sale

If they have ever a sane moment then instead the hardware they push for the software/service side (XBlive for the PS3 / WII/PC platform,like the Steam)

Now they lost the first position on the PC,and they are in the deep swamp in the console business.

Of course for a nerd the PS3/xb360 the most beautiful things that ever been made by the mankind.

Hmm?? It looks like a dumb idea now but their investment is such a long term plan, that it could be proven like one of the best decisions in a decade or two.
The 360 isnt sold at a loss anymore mind you.
Judging by how much things changed with the introduction of another competitor in the market I think the 360 is doing very well which is helping MS expand their operations and combine them.

If the 360 wasnt released, we would have had only Sony and Nintendo in the console gaming industry eating away from MS's only platform available for gaming which is Windows based PC's with Direct X support.

Their console brought PC hardware closer to consoles and developers are using MS's API's for consoles which in addition maintains support for DirectX games in Windows PCs.

From there on they no longer invest on gaming consoles and OS but on home computer entertainment devices which is the same vision Sony had with Playstation and basically thats what the 360 is.
Sony wasnt just a game console maker anymore for them. They had access to whole world of technology and digital entertainment. MS new very well that they were expanding to computer entertainment in the same areas THEY wanted to expand.
With the help of a console they made their features more user friendly and easier to access in the comfort of the living room through a multifunctional device, where Sony would have been the only ones to do that without them.

 

[Nesh]

I don't think Sony's inclusion of BD had much of an impact on MS and the 360. Being first to the scene was very important to Microsoft and it paid off in my opinion enough to warrant the RROD losses they incurred.

MS used that lead to really build the Xbox brand, honestly it wasn't much of a brand before the 360 and if it didn't lauch first the PS3 would have stomped all over it. Speaking of brands in my opinion Xbox SAVED Microsoft's image, at the time MS was ready to release the original xbox they were catching a bunch of heat from consumers and critics.

Microsoft is not the same company with the same image they were 10 years ago, Vista would have been a dagger to Microsofts credibility far more then it was. MS had the image of greed and monopoly practices that kept them in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

So for me, I chalk up the 8billion lost on rebuilding their brand image and in that sense I think it was money well spent.

Well it probably have a positive impact on MS.
PS3's launch was delayed partly due to the BD. It expanded MS's lead. Not only that, it was released a year later in the US and 1.5 years later in Europe without a clear performance advantage over the 360 because the BD inclusion took already much of the cost. Further to that, it sent retail price to the roof. The 360 was much cheaper and it was getting mind blowing games like Gears. So.....what did the consumer get for paying extra over the 360? Mostly Blu Ray.
But to make things worse the consumer was unsure about BR due to the format wars and small user base of HDTV's. That extra "advantage" wasnt perceived clearly as being REALLY one.


I agree totally about the brand image rebuilt

Today even kids like MS products

 

[MfA]

Assertions that the money could have been spent making a windows gaming ecosystem are interesting, but misguided. It's not the gaming ecosystem MS is after, it's the living room.

They could have done that with windows (they half tried with media center, but splitting it up from gaming unnecessarily made that a losing proposition).

 

[Nesh]

They could have done that with windows (they half tried with media center, but splitting it up from gaming unnecessarily made that a losing proposition).

It would have been as easily penetrable with just Windows would it? The console is a tried and proven medium :smile:

 

[Barso]

I also read that MS backed HDDVD solely to slow the growth of bluray.
We know HDDVDs fate but nothing would put it past MS using tactics like that.
That's the beauty of having the money to dispose like that.
If it was true then Sony didn't stand a chance once MS entered the console war.

 

[Nesh]

You mean if it was true that MS backed HDDVD for that purpose?

 

[MfA]

It would have been as easily penetrable with just Windows would it?

Yes.

The console is a tried and proven medium :smile:

A tried and proven medium of frequently reversing fortunes (excepting Nintendo).

 

[AlphaWolf]

Explain how windows was going to make it into the living room, on whose hardware?

 

[Nesh]

Oops. Typo there.I ment "wouldnt have been" not "would have been"