In your 15 years history where is Xbox 1 with HDD in all units?Not even remotely in the same universe as what I said.
They can not download expansion packs or DLC, which was exactly the case with every previous console ever made other than Xbox1. All of a sudden that equates to 'screwing' your userbase? Am I on B3d or has this been replaced with GAF?
Will they have longer load times? Sure. Does that mean they are screwed? Give me a break.
What can Sony do about Japan?
- Thread starter Archgamer
- Start date
scooby_dooby
Legend
Yes Xbox1 had that capability, but I said the majority of gamers did not play on XBox1, they played on PS2, GC, PS1, N64, Super Nintendo etc etc etc
Surely you can understand the point One, and stop pretending you don't.
Or do you also believe that every gamer in the world, suddenly feels that they need a HDD, despite most never having used one before?
The Xbox HDD was horribly underused. Perhaps they were so afraid of being called a PC in a box they forgot all the advantages an HDD brought in the PC world, namely upgradeable and downloadable content. It also could be due to the lack of online infrastructure at the time. Whatever the reason, those problems are behind us, and HDD is going to be a major part of next-gen gaming. The removal of the HDD in 360 can only be construed as a dumb and shortsighted move.
Last edited by a moderator:
{Puts on Sony Shadestm and peels out}
Why you insist on this being a factor this gen when we had four years of real world study to see the difference a standard HDD would make in the console realm (which was minimal) is ... odd.
Because the xbox clearly failed to use the HDD properly? There was nearly no downloadable content on the first xbox, but there was lots of it on the 360. This is no different from the PC, where many things like patches, maps, expansion packs, etc., are all downloadable or installable. These things greatly improve the gaming experience in many ways, and in some cases, such as MMOs, an HDD is nearly required. You have shown us 4 years of market failure, not 4 years of proof that HDDs don't matter. If it really matters as little as you claim it does, then explain to me why Core sales are in the gutter.
Last edited by a moderator:
value
So 20GB is worth $100 to the average consumer? I think that proves the value of the HDD.
scooby_dooby
Legend
LMAO. As MS sits #1, we can only construe that removing the HDD was dumb and shortsighted?
You are the one who is being shortsighted, in 2 or 3 years, when the core is $99 and Sony is struggling to cost reduce their console below $150, then talk to me about how dumb a decision it was.
FYI, I was one of the most upset members on this board when the dual-SKU was revealed, I thought along your lines that it was a stupid stupid move. But, when you look at the big picture, and huge price advantage MS's has going forward, it's hard to argue that it was a bad move strategically. They not have to worry about a BR player, built in Wifi, or built in HDD, and can concentrate solely on a gaming device at the lowest possible pricepoint. (Exactly what PS2 offered in it's time)
As for the Core sales tanking, why do I have to explain it to you? Any rationale adult can look at the SKU, look at the perihpheral pricing, and determine exactly why the sales are so poor. Overpriced MC, overpriced HDD, wired controller, no HD cables = horrible value.
MS has intentially gimped the Core at this point in time, probably because they make more profit on the premium, however with a few slight adjustments the Core could be presented as a good value and begin to sell. At $199, $150 and beyond, the Core will sell extremely well.
Only the semi-hardcore crowd spends $300-400 on a console, and those people aren't going to want the Core with all it's drawbacks. To take that, and extrapolate that the mainstream audience will have the same preference, is extremely poor analysis imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone looking to get an xb360 that is also interested in hd and wireless gets the HDD for next to nothing.
Though I don't rank HDD as essential this gen, MS's #1 position isn't due to choice to remove standard HDD, as evidenced by the high proportion of HDD-equipped XB360s. It's not like removing the HDD from the Core has catapulted XB360 to success where PS3's HDD as bogged it down. Heck, if PS3 came with DVD instead of BRD, at $150 less, it'd probably be outdoing Core XB360 sales despite having an HDD!
No one buys a core on purpose and no one uses one without a HD for long, the core is a marketing stunt that allows them to say they sell a $299 console. Probably 95%+ 360 owners have a premium system, so it begs the question was there any "value" to selling a core and thus making the HD optional and potentially gimping game development? Defending the core is just defending MS at this point, none of us own a core and none of us knows anyone that owns a HD-less core.
The opposite is true for Sony. They should have 50% of all PS3 on the shelves as 20GB. Why they announced them and somehow stop shipping them is beyond me. Both companies make strange decisions.
The opposite is true for Sony. They should have 50% of all PS3 on the shelves as 20GB. Why they announced them and somehow stop shipping them is beyond me. Both companies make strange decisions.
agreed.
we're a broken record here but let's bookmark these posts and talk about sales numbers in late 2008 and beyond when the Core may be the new PS2 to millions of late adopters.
that is utterly ridiculous.
Let me be more clear... THE CORE IS NOT DESIGNED FOR US.
With peripheral discounts bundles and price drops, it will find any entirely new market in the future.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Agreed. My point was that it is way too early in the game to be proclaiming what was or was not a mistake for MS, especially given their current success.
In other words, there is certainly no evidence that it was a mistake at this point. So, for someone to state 'we can only conclude it was a mistake' is rather silly IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or so you say. $300 is pretty close to a "mainstream" price, and sales are dismal. I can't imagine any price cuts boosting sales in a way resembling the huge surge you're suggesting. We're looking at something like a 500-1000% sales increase on a 33-50% price cut for your claim to work, which is quite a stretch.
Please note the PS2 sold tens of millions at $300, and sales only modestly increased at $200. Also, the Dreamcast and Gamecube were $200 and $150 throughout most of their lives. Sales of those systems still stunk. Perhaps price is a big factor at the $400-600 range, but historically they were nearly irrelevant at the $300 and under price range.
scooby_dooby
Legend
So let me get this straight, assuming the Core eventually drops to $149, you don't see anyone buying it with a memory card to play games?
What happened to those masses of cheap mainstream gamers that continue to make the PS2 such a success?
There is a market for the core, I don't whats so hard about that for people to understand.
what 20 million or so? and then 80 million+ at $199 and less.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Well then you should study your history a little better.
Want to see a surge, take a look at the holidays 2001, after PS2 dropped to $199. You'll see your surge.
And $299 is not a mainstream pricepoint, it has always been the launch price for previous generations, and the mainstream do not buy at launch.
Besides you miss the point entirely. The sub 199 market is a different market than the $300-400
one, and the core will be much more appealing to these 'cheap' gamers than it is to the people willing to spend $400 on a gaming console (the minority).
I never said there would be a 'surge' at all, I alluded to a shift, as the core becomes more attractive and allows entry at a lower pricepoint it's sales will increase. It will become more attractive when it enter the pricerange of the people it's aimed at, which is not $300.
Last edited by a moderator:
About 30 million or so I believe. Then something like 40 million at $179-199, and another 40 million happened at $129-149.
PS2 dropped to $199 the following year, in Spring of 2002. It was $300 throughout 2001.
I can't imagine the industry being so stratified that for the equivalent of 3 extra games, your sales is going to increase by hundreds of percentage points.
okay let's say I concede 30 million... 70+ million at $199 and below. so how can you say $199 price point is not a watermark price for mass market saturation?
anyone with any sense or a calculator can see that the Core will be the first SKU, not made by Nintendo, that is poised to hit $199 and adding a memory card to it is just what 100+ million PS2 owners did. I don't think they'll bat an eye.
