Uh, yeah, hence why I actually said as much just before the bit you quoted:
The 'classically American' styling of XB1 probably helped it gain traction in the US where the same style didn't win friends in the EU. XB360 mellowed (I even mentioned that as well at the end of my post) which meant MS could build on their XB user base by reaching a new audience - yet the absence of that XB base in Europe meant MS had less to build on. If American styling was important to getting an American foothold with XB, then for XB3 and getting a foothold in the EU, they'd need some styling or positioning that works here. I'm not sure what that is.
I don't think brand recognition means nothing. I just have noticed that in the home video game console market, major success is almost never built incrementally, generation by generation. It tends to strike more like lightning--the NES, Megadrive, Wii, PS1, and PC-Engine (which was quite successful in Japan) did not follow on a previous success.
Um, everything else?
What in my 22 thousand posts on this board leads you to think that I'd attribute platform success on one single factor?! As there is nothing measurable that can be taken in isolation (XB wasn'tjust PS2 in a bigger box for a fair scientific comparison) then we can only speculate on the forces at play and various choices these companies should make. Some people were suggesting a home-turf advantage to 'buy American', but I'm suggesting that doesn't much happen and any home advantage would just be as a result of an affinity for the 'american-ness' of the platform, which extends far beyond just the size of the case. The name, the styling, the available games and promotion of them, the marketing - was much more 'Hollywood action movie' for XB than PS2 (at least in Europe; Sony I believe have regional marketing that was more targeted in PS2's days) and that didn't go down so well here. The first XBox ad campaign even got banned in the UK for being offensive!
If there are a few other American posters on board that can attest that would be great, but count me in for, "no, the styling of the original xbox didn't help in sales in the states".
Nobody thought the original xbox looked good!
The only thing good about it was it had a top-class GPU and a HDD which enabled some really cool game experiences for equal price to a playstation2.
Us Americans were able to look past that ugly mess and see it for the inner beauty it had!
The xbox360 controller is still too big for me even though it's quite a bit smaller than the original.
I think you simplify things way to much, to dientify the 'one or two' deciding factors. That's like tasting a cake, finding you like it, and deciding it's the majority ingredient that makes it good - the flour and the sugar. Yet recipes are often successful because all ingredients come together, and the same with selling a product en masse. The reasons for any of these consoles succeeding and failing are mlutifarious, and detailing them is the work of a graduate thesis, while trying to understand them is the lifelong work of businessmen!
Styling doesn't just mean physical appearance; the whole 'attitude' of the XBox was more 'American'.
I don't disagree. I wasn't presenting a case for XB's success; only a counter-argument to those who felt 'buy American' was a significant contribute to XB's success.
Not completely, but I can throw in some questions. For example point 2 - most gamers have no idea how their console compares. Articles like the DF head-to-heads get thousands of views from tens of millions of gamers - Joe Gamer doesn't really care. There's also the issue of desirability being generated via marketing. People will buy a useless heap of junk if its cool enough! Hence a better, cheaper console can be overlooked for the 'cooler' one. That's why marketing is such big business, and no-one tries to sell their product just by listing its positive attributes. You'll also have to expand your criteria to include non-gaming tasks. They have become media machines, and watching content on your console is a valuable feature. Anyone with a Netlflix/LoveFilm account will be a little more inclined to buy the console that supports their service. There are also factors that are completely irrelevant to some gamers and essential to others. Online can be a big selling point for XB360 and yet is irrelevant to many gamers. BRD could be a major plus for PS3 for some. In fact any of your points will be important or irrelevant to some or more potential buyers - some people don't have to worry about cost whereas for others that's the limiting factor. Some people only want to game alone. Some people onlty care for one or two games (FIFA, GT, COD). The numbers of these are impossible to measure, making a general recipe for success hard to pin down (which is why these console companies manage to make and lose billions, even those with as much experience as Nintendo - there's no single forumla for success).
Not really. Its physical styling was as sleek as a big box could be; its interface is very classy; its library and emphasis is very broad. None of the current consoles is the Humvee of the gaming world, but I wouldn't expect a big Humvee type console from anywhere other than the States.
You might be right about that, and that'd be the difference between MS's performance entering the console market and Sony's.
That undoes your argument nicely! And your mention of graphics was focussed on 360's cross-platform titles generally performing better than PS3, but Joe Gamer doesn't know or doesn't care; not the difference between Wii and PS360.
I disagree. Social forces come into play from install base. Launching a platform or growing a platform by attracing new customers outside the existing peer groups requires marketing. That is, marketing attracts new customers. Executing your product/services well generates loyalty and self-propagation via peer groups.
Decidedly incorrect. XB360 doesn't have a BluRay player. XB360 hasn't had iPlayer and a host of other EU onine TV channels for a while (that's being fixed). PS3 hasn't had the Netflix tie in. 360 hasn't got Music/Movies Unlimted. etc. There's a lot of difference between the media services on offer which will only become more important if/as the media services become consolidated. If Movies Unlimited becomes successful, MS will be lacking in their next console, and similar if Live becomes dominant then Sony will be lacking. But you can't mix-and-match the content, so it'll be an important deciding factor similar to a hardware format war. This is one attack vector Apple has open to them should the decide to give consoles a go - they already have a very large install base or iTunes users who could be offered an entertainment system that supports all their iContent.
The origins of PS weren't to make a console for console gamers, but to make the go-to platform for people to be entertained (play-station) as opposed to work (work-station). Sony went out to appeal to everyone, and in that they were pretty successful, although mostly attracting new gamers from young people I think. It took PS2 to broaden gaming to its most encompassing.
Uh, yeah. Nintendo and Sega were barely heard of. Sony entered a practically empty market.
