It is and Japan is the reason why. Japan has played a huge role in getting the Wii install base to where it is currently and once better titles for the territory are released it will be likely help Sony catch up to the 360 install base. This is part of the reason why fixing the mistake Microsoft has made in Japan is so important.
Xbox 2007 or bust?
- Thread starter blakjedi
- Start date
It is and Japan is the reason why. Japan has played a huge role in getting the Wii install base to where it is currently and once better titles for the territory are released it will be likely help Sony catch up to the 360 install base. This is part of the reason why fixing the mistake Microsoft has made in Japan is so important.
I mean a shopkeeper, who buy a mercedes just to bring every day the fresh vegetables into the shop. You know, the vertical lamp mercedes had a nickname in eastern europe, this was "the car of the merchant" 10 years ago.
But I don't think the company want this image.
Like the MS,if they only a company who bring a single player experience, then where is the difference between the ps2/ps3/pc and the xb?
The center of the ms world is the live, everything is designed around it.Probably you can enjoy your xb without it,but the 90% of the customers are agree with this statement.
C'mon.The majority of the world can not afford a 60$ game.So,I don't think any company want to target them.The 300$ is good for a machine that have games for 60$.
You're looking at it the wrong way. At the moment, both the Core and Premium are 'expensive'. Obviously, to the consumers shopping for expensive toys in the >$299 price range, the Premium is the better buy. No argument there, and naturally the Premium is the top seller.
This isn't the point, however. The Core SKU exists for the day where the overall price reduction has come so far as to make the Core a 'cheap' toy in the mind of the masses while the Premium is till an expensive one. This potential market is vastly bigger less discriminable. Even though cheapass late adopter enthusiasts can still argue (with merit) that a future $219 Premium is a better deal than the $129 Core (prices are guesstimates pulled from my ass), the number of customers for which the former purchase is not an option while the latter one is will more than make up for it.
Until the time comes when the Core SKU turns 'cheap' though, it will always be the ugly stepchild of the family, since MS probably couldn't have waited to introduce a storage-less SKU at a later date due to game compatibility issues.
Uhh kind of odd telling the current gen console leader in sales it is do or die time for them.
Sorry but with the PS3 going below 100,000 in sales in the USA for 3 months in a row Sony are the ones that need to worry. The 360 has never sold below 150,000 in a month since it's release. While the 360 has not put the final nail in the coffin for the PS3 the 360 is hardly in a position that it is nearing death.
Sorry but with the PS3 going below 100,000 in sales in the USA for 3 months in a row Sony are the ones that need to worry. The 360 has never sold below 150,000 in a month since it's release. While the 360 has not put the final nail in the coffin for the PS3 the 360 is hardly in a position that it is nearing death.
The leader in the sales is the nds.
The leader in the sold units is the ps2.
The highest sales/month volume for home console label belling to the wii.
The ps3 sold more unit worldwide in the past few month than the xb.
You have to apply many constrain to be able to say "the xb is the leader in sales"
in the "current gen(which exist only in the mind of the hc gamers)",in the home consoles,in the us.I think if we will apply one more constrain we can found the n64 as the leader of the sales.
1.This is the console forum, not the handheld forum.
2. Is the PS2 is a dead console, there are no more first party releases for it. Sales will slowly but steady go downhill. If your applying this moron logic to use the PS2 in this argument, surely swanlees comment about the X360 having the biggest userbase out of current gen console is just as valid.
3. Yup.
4. I have no idea where you got that last piece of information, AFAIK until recently (read price cut) the PS3 has in no way or form outsold the X360 per month.
2. That dead console still outsells the still "living" 360 all over the world. But i agree it will go down eventually of course
4. It has, in Japan and Europe (and i think Australia as well afair).
scooby_dooby
Legend
Except he said 'worldwide'.
We arguing about sales and future and so on,not abut the register structure of the nds.
And for my kid,the nds decreased the amount of money and time they spend on "console" games,and I am sure about that this is the case for everybody .
So,the nds and the xb fight for the same money.The retailers and the software makers share this opinion.
In Europe, only if you include the launch period.
All in all, you are confusing the two statements:
"The Core, a Xbox 360 without a HDD, is worthless at any price"
with
"The Core is not a good bargain at $299"
The first of them is not true. The second is. They are not equivalent, not in some absolute form, nor in the minds of the customers.
You don't go from $199 being "cheap" to $299 being "expensive".
The last two generation has shown that price is not a determining factor below $300 and price gaps at or below $100.00. $199.00 wasn't a magic price tag for the GC and it won't be for the Core.
While the best holiday season for the PS2 came at the $199.00 price point, the second best holiday season for the ps2 came at $299.00. $199.00 for the PS2 allowed peak sales because its was a console with the highest demand. In comparsion the peak holiday sales for the GC occured at $99.00 and $149.00 for the Xbox (with the help of Halo 2).
A $199.00 price tag has shown to be a console seller but the amount of sales have always been relative to demand. The $199.00 price point alone isn't going to sky rocket Core sales.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
This logic is seriously flawed.
Price most definately was a factor in the success of all consoles last generation. Specifically the PS2, as shown by it's aggressive price drop strategy all throughout it's lifetime.
Pointing to a console with a poor game library, as evidence that price does not matter, is ridiculous.
Look at the successful consoles, like PS2, and analyze how they did: with a strong library and aggressive price drops.
Also, you can't deny that it's a completely different demographic at $199 than it is at $299, especially if MS were to adjust the calue of the Core to be more compelling. The combination of those two things would definately draw in a large group of new customers.
Well, duh. Unlike you though, I'm not talking about price vs. features as if it is an either or situation here. Obviously, MS will have to incite people to want an Xbox somehow (something Nintando failed to do with th GC), but if they do there's a huge market that simply won't pay my imaginary $219,- for a games console (no matter how much of a bargain the more knowledgeable consumers might think it is) but might pick one up at $129,- (even if it's less of a deal).
The Core is there to hit a pricepoint the Premium simply cannot hit and still be profitable on the hardware. Eventually to reach consumers the Premium can't reach. For now it's pretty useless, I agree, bit it's not there to shine now. Let's pick this up again around Christmas '09, you'll see...
The logic is not flawed when you look at the stipulations attached to it.
"below $300 and price gaps at or below $100.00"
The PS2 was never the cheapest console on the market and had effectively captured the US market at its original price point in that region.
The $299 PS2 outsold a $199.00 GC in 2001 and a $179.00 PS2 outsold a $99.00 GC in 2003, in both years by large margins.
Whats aggressive about $100.00 price drop after 18 months, $20.00 drops after a 12 month interval, a $30.00 after another 12 month interval followed by a $30.00 after almost 24 months?
The outcome for the console winner is far from being decided, but to say that the 360, in its current situation is in trouble sounds to me like wishful thinking…
I’m sure that this holiday season we’ll see both consoles selling very well.
Even perhaps very close in sales for Nov Dec?
Time will tell.
I’m sure that this holiday season we’ll see both consoles selling very well.
Even perhaps very close in sales for Nov Dec?
Time will tell.
scooby_dooby
Legend
So what? All this shows is that GC would've sold even worse if it were a higher price, because it had a poor game library.
The comparison does not hold true when discussing Core vs Premium.
33% pricedrop after 18 months is pretty damned aggressive. Especially if they, as you say: "effectively captured the US market at its original price point".
Even having captured the market as you say, the dropped price 33%. Why? Because it was integral to the success of the console to attract a different set of consumers and Sony knew that.
Its proof of my argument that price is not a determining factor below $300.00 and where competing consoles sit within $100.00 dollars of each other.
The Core and the Premium are two competing console from the same company. Both have differing levels of demand that can't simply be explain by price. You can't simply equate the demand for the "Premium" sku to the demand of the "Core" sku. If the 360 consisted of one sku that sold at Core levels no one would be talking about skyrocketing sales at a $199.00 price point.
Yet the Xbox dropped 33% in six months 50% in 2.5 years and the GC dropped 25% in 6 months and 50% in 2 years. In comparsion the PS2 took 18 months for a 33% drop and 3.5 years for a 50% drop. Aggressive in comparsion to whom? Not in comparsion to the PS2's competitors.
It is very flawed.
How many consoles was the PS2 selling before the price drop? How many after? A 33% retail price cut, is rather big. If it allready captured the marked in the US, the fact that they continously price dropped, means that price obvious is very relevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't understand dobwall. Nobody is saying that price alone determines sales. Price and good game library is determing it. The PS2 had both, the others had neither.
Its very agressive when you are the market leader, and you feel threatened to continue price drop when the competition does. It means that Sony felt price was VERY relevant. You proved nothing.
If the PS2 wouldn't engage in the price war with the Xbox, it would mean that Sony marketing and finance departments figured price war rather irrelevant. But they didn't, they felt threatened, they followed up on the price wars, vs a completely new console product, which a much worse game library than the PS2 had.
Similar threads
