check the financial reports.
The xb sold less in 2007 than the wii or the ps3 or the ps2 worldwide.
Xbox 2007 or bust?
- Thread starter blakjedi
- Start date
check the financial reports.
The xb sold less in 2007 than the wii or the ps3 or the ps2 worldwide.
This is a completely ridiculus statement shifty, if you had any economics\business classes you would see that this theory hold no ground. It may not have made a big difference, but it definately would have had an impact on sales.
Read up on price elasticity.
The xbox 360 shipped less in 2007. Doesn't mean they sold less. They stressed to ship out as many consoles as possible in 2006 to reach their 10mill milestone.
Still doesn't change anything. The fact that you cannot accept the X360 to have to biggest userbase of the next gen console is very amusing.
The report is the only one fact that we have.
From the other side, if you check the sold units on the vgchartz or on any other site,the sold number is higher too for 2007.
Hey, I can accept that from the last 3 console the xb360 have the highest userbase worldwide until today.
But the issue of the ms is the bad sales of the xbox 360.
You know, more than two year with bad sales can produce higher sold number than less than one year with good sales.
The software lineup is fine,the early adopters spend big money on every month for the product (it is not a supprise , the ms spend a big pile of money for the only xb softwares ),but the product not able to attract many new customer.
After it,the many billion $ that they spend for the 2005 launch is a waste of money and time. Basicaly, they destroy the image of the machine for nothing.Right now they try to spend a few hundred million $ for exclusive softwares,and that money not so big after the more than 1 billion american money that they spend for the RROD experience.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Their early launch and the subsequent isntall base advantage, together with their vastly superior toolset, is what made the favorite for developers, ensured they are the leading platform for all multiplatform games, and got them many exclusives.
As for the $30 discussed earlier - this is no small matter; a console cheaper by $30 needs 3-6 games LESS to break even (assuming $10 first-party fee for fullprice games and $5 for reduced price games). If you decide to include a HDD all things being equal, you need everybody to buy 3-6 games more to break even. This is not a problem for MS now with their sky-high attach rate from the hardcore crowd, but will definitely be important when the 360 spreads amongst the casuals who buy, say a Madden and a Guitar Hero per year.
Like the DC?Or the WII?
From the other side, the whole price thing is interesting.For the wii,the target price (probably with 8-10$profit) was 200$.They start to sell it for 250$,with ~60$ profit on each unit,and they can not produce enought unit.
Right now the profit can be 70-90$,and after the 65nm wii it will be $100 at least.
This is the distruptive business modell.This is the main reason why the sony/ms are in trouble.
The N is on that position where the ms or the sony can be after 6-25 sold software.
I know the theory (did do a little economics at Uni, but in the UK higher-education is more specialist) but I've not seen any real investigations into it. Can you refer me to any place that demonstrates a real-world sensitivity where selling a product at $210 reduces sales versus $200?
But if the report is reporting shipped numbers, thats rather useless isn't it?
Vgcharts
Aside from the European launch, and the recent price cut, the X360 has continously outselling the PS3. Therefore the statement about the PS3 outselling the X360 in 2007 is largely irrelevant, take away the european launch week sales numbers, and use an average mean of the rest, and its not. And the ueropean launch week was a one time abnormality in the weekly sales.
Even the numbers after the initial european week, doesn't suggest you could draw any conclusion that one or the other is really outselling eachother.
In fact, whats interesting, if you allign the launch, the Ps3 is neck and neck with the inital year of the X360.
Then i suggest you read your economic book, its sure to include a lot of investigations into it, im not going to waste my time trying to find a product exactly priced within that range because you fail to acknowledge tested and proven economic theories.
Basicaly for the xb-ps3 duo the future is elastic,the current difference is not extremly big.We will see it.But from a gfx enthaustic standpoint the ps3 is the best console, so I have a feeling about the final result.
I fail to acknowledge lots of 'tested and proven' theories because often they later get to be superseded on better research! Including lots of common held beliefs. IIRC economics has a number of theories and models and schools of thought, and no absolute proofs of any of them.
But you and I follow very different school of thought on proofs. No point arguing about it. I'm not going to believe charging $5 more for a $200 product is going to lose you any sales, and you're not going to question that it does!
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Now how many of you feel stupid for wasting your time having this debate? A show of hands, please.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Can you share with us why products are sold at $199 instead of $205, then?
There is clearly a pricing trend set by the manufacturers. Are you actually debating that their trend is incorrect? Because Ost failed to provide the evidence to support those trend, you believe the evidence doesn't exist at all and manufacturers are just guessing?
I'm confused as to your theory, Shifty.
If you believe that a product will sell (and lets use the "real" numbers here) equally at $130 and $99, why would manufacturers ever price their product at $99?
Lmao.
So basically, everything you don't understand and therefore disagree with, you dismiss based un your lack of knowledge.
Thats like me claiming the X360 is more poweful than the PS3, because i say so and refusing to hear any other arguments. You may ofcourse have that belief, but you better be able to back your theories up with something, and actually be able to have some proper arguments, if your going to post it in a discussion forum.
But hey, this is proven. I hold my my hands real life examples from my text book (Pendyck & Rubenfield), one including wheet, gasoline, cars (hell there was even a nice recent real life example for cars), coffee, milk, and cell phones. Why would a console not be affected by a proven theory?
Now, let me guess, you don't believe in this because if somebody wants something for $200 they can afford something that costs $5 more right?
Okay, real life example from 2006, Norway. Norway had a car tax reform recently, which basically gave a price cut to diesel cars and a raise for gasoline cars. Now, these price cuts where minimal, the cheapest car that you can buy new in norway, costs $35 000. The average new car thats sold retails for $65 000. Price cuts on diesels where on average $600. Increase in gasoline engines where roughly $1000.
Now based on the same line of thought that you are applying, you would not think that a price cut or increase in 1-2% wouldn't really matter right? If your set for buying a car, you could afford that extra $600 anyway?
Interestingly, diesel car sales went up, as expected, gasoline cars sales went down, however, there was a rather large increase in the total car sales, as the entry level cars got a tad cheaper, more people started buying it, overall car sales increased far above any normality due to increase in population, etc. We sold 6% more cars. The usual growth is less than 2%.
Anyways,
The way your presenting your opinions and dismiss anything you disagree with by brushing it off, even if it involves brushing off theorems made by nobel price winners used by EVERY company in the world with a proper economic\finance department, is an insult to everybody who has an education in that field.
Further, basically shifty, what your saying is that you REFUSE TO BELIVE THAT PRICE HAS IMPACT ON DEMAND. Which goes against all economic theories known to man, except for yours.
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand the point of the "Core". Its a sku that meant to be cheaper to pick sales for those that don't like the "Premium"'s price tag. However, its not suppose to be the primary driver for 360 sales, if it were the Premium would be bundled differently or priced higher.
We can see from the price cuts that have become official that MS is using the price cuts to drive more Premium sales than Core sales.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course not.
Higher prices on xb premium and elite allow higher profits.
They want to steer consumers into spending more money for as long as possible. The only deterrent to following this pattern will be if consumers start to reject their product at all price points.
As is, the core has even less value than before (steering folks HARD to the premium now). Look for core sales to be ~nonexistant at the current pricepoints.
I don't understand it.
The increase of the market have to came from the new diesel buyers.But they did not have any car before the diesel (that is strange,I think,because the entry level car is the gasoline due the cheaper price) or they have to dump the used cars into the market,and that decrease the demand for the next year.
The point is that,if they able to keep the car consumption on the same level ass before,the general income situation of the market had to improve compared to the prior period.But in that case the cause of the sales peak is the income change,and not the tax change.
Nope, the entry level cars are diesels for the most part, or very small gasoline engines (that didn't get tax increase, this due to the taxes being based on CO2 emmissions).
Income has been growing at more or less the same rate, (in fact, its slowed down now, because the RSF is going up all the time)
The theory of that is psychological, that buyers place greater importance on the first digit, seeing $200 as notably, or subconsciously, more expensive than $199. A price of $198 versus $199 won't have the same impact as the prices are perceived to be too similar. The choice of $199 is as close as they can get to the psychological $2xx figure without actually being $2xx, so that's why it's a choice. And often it's a choice of only a few pence/cents.
Not exactly, but it'd be an amazing coincidence, don't you think, if the perfect supply/demand balance was achieved at round multiples of tens/hundreds, don't you think? Why don't the equations come up with the optimal sales/profits figure as, say, $185.74?
No, I don't. I was saying there'd be no difference between a $200 and a $210 console, and I said that by the time it's a choice between a $100 console and a competing $130 console, the price isn't going to be the deciding factor. See XB and GC as cheaper than PS2 yet selling less for proof of that. Price point isn't the only factor, and aiming to shave $30 off for competing price-wise isn't going to make much difference in this market IMO. At the current high prices, buyers aren't going to choose one over the other on account of $30. When the price is lower, the other factors will have played out.
Nope. I just don't always take experts advice for it on accounthtat they're experts and I'm not. I like to know where they're coming from before I trust them absolutely. My dad trusted the opinion of a doctor and died because of it. Asking questions never hurt anyone... Okay, it has got people stoned and ridiculed and ruined, but mankind's way past that sort of behaviour, right?Ostepop said:
Except I'm not refusing to hear any other arguments! I did ask for information to back up that opinion, which is the same as asking "Dear Mr. Console Expert, where you say XB360 is better than PS3, can you please explain to me why?" What I'm wanting is an explanation why, or some form of proof of the theory. The only argument I was refusing was 'XB360 is better than PS3 because this expert says so' when I don't know how that expert came to their opinion. And that's a reasonable analogy to many a theory. We have 'experts' all over the place giving opinions on the matter of which console is better. It's not enough to take their word for it at face value. One needs to understand the opinions to decide if they're right or not. Even experts can be wrong. They're still human after all.
Which is all I was asking for - actual examples.
Not exactly. The deterrent factor might not be what they can afford, but could be a psychological response. See the $199 vs $200 argument above.
Would be nice and is what I was asking for!
This example doesn't prove the theory of small price changes affecting buying practice though. Price is not the only factor affecting whether a person chooses a car or not. Other factors like working practises, public transport, demographics, etc. can all affect that result. Thus if this is a study used to prove a 1-2% drop in price increases demand some 4%, and a $200 console will sell better than a $210 console, I say it's no good. I have read scientific reports that have drawn conclusions, and then when you read the report, you find glowing mistakes in the research that show the conclusions can't be valid. Thus I would like to either trust the experts' opinions because I trust how they are doing their work, or I'd like to see the reports that they use to form their opinions and make my own. In this case I don't trust the economics experts - they may be right, but I won't trust them without reason.
Well, if it's rude to question someone or something just because everyone else accepts it, I'll continue being rude! What you have said there is the same as saying in the year 1200..."even if it involves brushing off theorems made by the royal physician and used by EVERY doctor in the land with a proper medical training"...in response to me questioning if bleeding people really is the best cure for a fever.
I find it hard to accept that out of all human history, and the millions of wrong ideas and false theories adhered to, it's now that we're 100% right in everything. You my have absolute faith in Nobel Prizes and other accolades, but I won't necessarily take it as all factual whether I understand it or not. I have seen and read far too much 'expert' advice to have unquestioning faith in it, especially when experts are invariably hostile to challenges to their ideas. I guess they to consider it rude to question their superiority, and it's rude to perform investigations to determine if they're right or wrong... I have seen plenty of research into systems, especially biological systems, where results fit neat, predictable curves, and theories and conclusions have been tested and 'proven', only for untested low and high values to show the model is incorrect. I am convinced that in their research, economists have studied all sorts of real-life situations that map very well to their models, and they've done good work in that field, but I also question (I say question, and if someone can show me proper research that shows otherwise I'll obviously accept its results, only I'm not going to spend time investigating it because I don't much care for economics and would rather do other things!) that these are absolutely correct when other fields of study or reasoning can't support them.
That's not what I've said at all. Of course pricing has an impact on demand! I never said otherwise, and how on earth could you think I had? What I don't accept is that small price differences can have an affect, such that a $200 console will sell more than a $210 console. Will it outsell a $250? Yep. And a $230? Probably. At the human behaviour level, these can be explained as influential amounts, as can a $199.95 price improving sales versus a $200 (though that's something I'd be interested to see evidence of, other than just theory). I can't myself see a behaviour modifying factor between $200 and $210 for a console though. How is that small price difference rationalized into a change in purchasing decision by the would-be shopper? What wannabe XB360 owners out there now waiting for it at $200 would not buy it if it dropped to $210 instead? Even if no-one knows why the small price difference would put people off, do we have examples where this is shown? These can be discussed further and analysed and considered, but this is a console forum and not an economics or philosophy forum!
You and I have very different views on knowledge and understanding, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. You present the view that at such and such a price, XB360 will sell such and such. I present a slightly different view that some pricing schemes won't make any difference. Everyone else can choose whether to agree with you and your Nobel Prize winners and legions pf professional economists and expensive finance departments, or me and my...um...cynicism, and , er, historical viewpoint, and decide who they agree with.
Great post Shifty. $10 is $10 whichever way you spin it. I've noticed on this forum, that Americans are more price-sensitive than Europeans, but how can anyone think that $10 can have a large/significant impact on a $200 console? Its merely a psychological threshold because its a round number. However, if the product is considered in high regard by the would-be-buyer, $10 or $20 is going to have virtually no impact. I think $40 or $50 is when an impact might be felt, because consoles are long-term buys. I mean, whats $10 over 5 years?
If everyone thought in these terms, they would all buy PS3's because Xbox Live Silver and Gold packages cost, while a similar online experience can be had with the PSN for free.
If everyone thought in these terms, they would all buy PS3's because Xbox Live Silver and Gold packages cost, while a similar online experience can be had with the PSN for free.
Similar threads
