XBox 360 launched in Japan

[aldo]

Eleazar are you in Japan? Just wondering so that I can keep track of all the Japanese residents on this board for when One's not around for me to bug for a translation.

@Aldo: Those price-cuts are in association with ISP sign-up deals, you know the same kind of thing where you can often get a significant discount on a new computer in the US if you sign a 1-year conteact for MSN or AOL or something. Granted it's not a *good* sign for MS, but at the same time it's not as bad as a straight price cut.

Thanks XB. That makes sense. Dropping prices in just four days to get them off the shelf definitely did not make sense.

Sorry Alpha. Didn't mean for you to rupture a sphincter over it.

-aldo

 

[dubyateeeff]

ITs not a matter of how much a company could 'survive on' in this generation, its about having healthy compeition in this space for years to come. Just becuase MS or Nintendo could survive on 30, even 15% doesnt mean that is the optimal conditions for us as consumers.

If I am interpreting you correctly you are talking about the long run? Well, so am I. 30% of the market share for the competition is enough _today_ if they can 'survive on' it. Yes, That is plenty enough to survive to 'fight another day' for years to come.

Healthy compeitition in the market benefits consumers, period.

.

^---- yes I agree with you

Seems we just disagree on the definition of healthy competition. For me, a company with 15% can make money is a good sign for the future. Market share says almost nothing about how competetive a market is.

One company having 70% or the market, and the other 2 having 15% each, to me, is not what i would call 'healthy competition.'

Look at AMD vs Intel during the last 10 years. Nintendo vs Sony, Nvidia vs ATI and ATI and Nvidia vs Intel. They managed to stay afloat and managed to compete in the long run. As long as they can make money today, they can grow tomorrow.

The consumers choose what is optimal for them. Buying a badly supported system just to keep market shares even is not optimal. Competition has brought us here. If Sony fails to please us as consumers then someone else will be able to grow their market share and take it away from them. For instance Sony did to Nintendo.

Cool?

 

[AlphaWolf]

Thanks XB. That makes sense. Dropping prices in just four days to get them off the shelf definitely did not make sense.

Sorry Alpha. Didn't mean for you to rupture a sphincter over it.

-aldo

Well its the 4th or 5th time that someone has used the xbox360 internet bundling deal as a sign that it's not selling well. They've also offered the same deal in Canada and the US. It's just a fact of business, there are lots of things that come bundled with a contract. Internet phone and cable companies have been bundling products for 20 years, there's no reason not to do the same with xbox360 as Live is a big selling point.

 

[dubyateeeff]

Next-Gen reports that only 62,000 units have been sold from a shipment of 150,000. That represents just a little over 40% of the available units.

www.next-gen.biz

 

[expletive]

If I am interpreting you correctly you are talking about the long run? Well, so am I. 30% of the market share for the competition is enough _today_ if they can 'survive on' it. Yes, That is plenty enough to survive to 'fight another day' for years to come.



.

^---- yes I agree with you

Seems we just disagree on the definition of healthy competition. For me, a company with 15% can make money is a good sign for the future. Market share says almost nothing about how competetive a market is.



Look at AMD vs Intel during the last 10 years. Nintendo vs Sony, Nvidia vs ATI and ATI and Nvidia vs Intel. They managed to stay afloat and managed to compete in the long run. As long as they can make money today, they can grow tomorrow.

The consumers choose what is optimal for them. Buying a badly supported system just to keep market shares even is not optimal. Competition has brought us here. If Sony fails to please us as consumers then someone else will be able to grow their market share and take it away from them. For instance Sony did to Nintendo.

Cool?

Just becuase a company can survive at a 15% market share, doesnt mean that a more even split wouldnt be more optimal for consumers. It seems you guys are arguing that as long as Nintendo and MS are profitable, then they have 'enough' market share. Maybe they do for pure survival but i'm saying that from a consumer standpoint, its not optimal. Those that are hoping for the 360 to get crushed in JP are rooting for a scenario where competition in that market (and subsequently globally) is less than optimal, and possibly bad, for consumers.

A 15% market share isnt the 'worst' scneario but it certainly isnt the 'best' for consumers either. I dont understand why people wouldnt want to see the industry at a point where its optimal for us as consumers.

 

[dubyateeeff]

Just becuase a company can survive at a 15% market share, doesnt mean that a more even split wouldnt be more optimal for consumers. It seems you guys are arguing that as long as Nintendo and MS are profitable, then they have 'enough' market share. Maybe they do for pure survival but i'm saying that from a consumer standpoint, its not optimal.

A 15% market share isnt the 'worst' scneario but it certainly isnt the 'best' for consumers either. I dont understand why people wouldnt want to see the industry at a point where its optimal for us as consumers.

Optimal for consumers isnt buying a badly supported system, because that seems to be what you are sudgesting.

If MS and Nintendo had a larger share that isnt necessarily better. All companies can quietly decide that its better to keep the share they have than risk it, save money on advertising and system cost by innovating less. Market share says almost nothing about competetiveness.

So how do you sudgest the market share should be divided?

 

[Bobbler]

Expletive, you seem to be confusing the difference between having competition and having an unnaturally fair marketshare. As long as there is more than one company (meaning a choice in the market) then the market is fine, regardless of their marketshare -- at that point the it is the customers choice, so saying everyone should have 30% market share is sort of silly if they haven't earned it. I prefer 3 competitors; their marketshare is moot as far as being an optimal situation for consumers, because everyone having 33% market share implies all 3 companies are offering equal amounts of content/reasons for buyers, which simply isn't true at the moment (in my opinion at least and seemingly the consumers opinion). The only thing optimal in a given market is having competition, the consumers choose after that -- market share is irrelevant to what is optimal to consumers, because they inevitably decide that. A ~15% market share means they aren't offering what the majority want (wide variety of games) -- which seems pretty accurate for Xbox1/GC, as far as I've seen.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Thanks XB. That makes sense. Dropping prices in just four days to get them off the shelf definitely did not make sense.

Sorry Alpha. Didn't mean for you to rupture a sphincter over it.

-aldo

Well 2 pages ago the exact same thing was posted, and I already explained why it was BS so it's pretty inexcusable to post the exact same thing again.

Futureshop was also giving away $200 off for people who signed up for ADSL, so you could also claim canadian retailers were selling it for $150 as well. Total nonsense.

 

[mckmas8808]

So youve made this assumption based on 2 days and no JP launch titles besides everyparty?

Yep. A great console should sell itself point blank. They did about double that with the first Xbox and it was an unknown quanity. This time around they should have done at least the same numbers even though DOA4 isn't out until Dec 29th.

And also they should have pushed back the release date to be beside the launch of DOA4. Why not, I mean didn't they know that this game is the biggest game at launch in Japan? I would have been working hour to hour with Itagaki and asked him every week, "When do you think the game will be ready" so that MS could have had a great launch.

What happens if the launch hype wears off by time the game comes out? With top notch PS2 games coming out, the PSP selling well, and the DS and its games selling like hot cakes how knows if the 360 can compete against that when DOA4 comes out.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If anything the 360 has more of an uphill climb in japan than XBOX did because of it's past failure, and teh negative image it has now.

Don't think anyone thought the 360 in japan would "sell itself"

No, it will take strong exclusives and good games to win back the confidence of the japanese gamers. We have to wait until those games come out, before we can make any worthwhile predictions.

 

[mckmas8808]

If anything the 360 has more of an uphill climb in japan than XBOX did because of it's past failure, and teh negative image it has now.

Don't think anyone thought the 360 in japan would "sell itself"

No, it will take strong exclusives and good games to win back the confidence of the japanese gamers. We have to wait until those games come out, before we can make any worthwhile predictions.

You see the glass half empty and I see the glass half full.

 

[Sis]

Yep. A great console should sell itself point blank. They did about double that with the first Xbox and it was an unknown quanity. This time around they should have done at least the same numbers even though DOA4 isn't out until Dec 29th.

And also they should have pushed back the release date to be beside the launch of DOA4. Why not, I mean didn't they know that this game is the biggest game at launch in Japan? I would have been working hour to hour with Itagaki and asked him every week, "When do you think the game will be ready" so that MS could have had a great launch.

What happens if the launch hype wears off by time the game comes out? With top notch PS2 games coming out, the PSP selling well, and the DS and its games selling like hot cakes how knows if the 360 can compete against that when DOA4 comes out.

You continue to imply that the launch is somehow a barometer for the console's overall success. Do you have any proof to back this up, other than your own counter example that the first Xbox had a decent launch?

I find two things wrong with this launch, neither of which have to do with initial sales. 1) The circus atmosphere that Peter Moore always strives to create, more so in Japan than other regions and 2) the seemingly inept retail management from MS side and MS seeming inability to judge/measure/predict consumer interest.

.Sis

 

[mckmas8808]

You continue to imply that the launch is somehow a barometer for the console's overall success. Do you have any proof to back this up, other than your own counter example that the first Xbox had a decent launch?

I find two things wrong with this launch, neither of which have to do with initial sales. 1) The circus atmosphere that Peter Moore always strives to create, more so in Japan than other regions and 2) the seemingly inept retail management from MS side and MS seeming inability to judge/measure/predict consumer interest.

.Sis

No I'm not trying to say that. If it came across like that then I apologize. I'm saying that I'm disappointed to see MS say they care so much about Japanese customer support, yet launch the system with no big name games.

 

[aldo]

Well 2 pages ago the exact same thing was posted, and I already explained why it was BS so it's pretty inexcusable to post the exact same thing again.

I don't know how I missed it Scoob. Totally inexcusable.
In the future I'll work on improving my forum skills by mimicking your thoroughness as well as your mild disposition.

[font=&quot]-aldo[/font]

 

[scooby_dooby]

No I'm not trying to say that. If it came across like that then I apologize. I'm saying that I'm disappointed to see MS say they care so much about Japanese customer support, yet launch the system with no big name games.

Well the games were there, they just got delayed.

The top 3 titles all slipped. What are you gonna do? (ship less consoles, which is what they should've done)

 

[pakotlar]

You see the glass half empty and I see the glass half full.

You were baselessly optomistic about the launch of an unproven console brand w/o interesting software in a historically tough market.

 

[expletive]

No I'm not trying to say that. If it came across like that then I apologize. I'm saying that I'm disappointed to see MS say they care so much about Japanese customer support, yet launch the system with no big name games.

Well they only had a few choices when the big launch titles slipped:

1. Continue with the launch as planned and let the games come out when 'theyre done', confident that the games and services youve lined up will sell the system in the long run

2. Push the launch back even though their huge marketing campaign focused on 12/10

3. Rush the games out the door just for the sake of making the launch date, with the high probablility of leaving a bad taste of in Japans collective mouth

You have a better idea?

And no, a new xbox-branded console will not 'sell itself' in Japan. Based on what we know about xbox1's success (or lack of it rather) in japan its kind of silly to even suggest it could.

 

[dubyateeeff]

You see the glass half empty and I see the glass half full.

No actually it can get worse. It did with the Xbox. Not saying it will this time, but your quote is not true.



PS. I hope someone gets this humor. DS.

Back on topic: So MS didnt manage to sell, what, 88k units in Japan at once (almost) without any games (of interest). 88k units hardly puts a dent in X2 globally. MS still seems to be on track to reach their sales figures. Just look at the US launch, people are going crazy over there. With a few games and they might even sell out the remaining 88k units.

 

[expletive]

Expletive, you seem to be confusing the difference between having competition and having an unnaturally fair marketshare. As long as there is more than one company (meaning a choice in the market) then the market is fine, regardless of their marketshare -- at that point the it is the customers choice, so saying everyone should have 30% market share is sort of silly if they haven't earned it. I prefer 3 competitors; their marketshare is moot as far as being an optimal situation for consumers, because everyone having 33% market share implies all 3 companies are offering equal amounts of content/reasons for buyers, which simply isn't true at the moment (in my opinion at least and seemingly the consumers opinion). The only thing optimal in a given market is having competition, the consumers choose after that -- market share is irrelevant to what is optimal to consumers, because they inevitably decide that. A ~15% market share means they aren't offering what the majority want (wide variety of games) -- which seems pretty accurate for Xbox1/GC, as far as I've seen.

No its not really irrelevant. MS has basically no marketshare in JP right now and theres clearly people on the forum hoping this launch/360 is a complete failure. At some point, having a 4% market share, gen after gen, will cause MS to give up in JP. When that happens, the inudstry will be worse off because there will be one less viable competitor.

 

[Brodda Thep]

It seems that there isn't much activity at all among consoles in Japan. Just comparing units sold for PS2 in North America and Japan is quite startling.

Isn't there a general trend over in Japan with the market cooling off significantly with respect to consoles?