XBox 360 launched in Japan

[Edge]

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?

The market is staturated. Everyone and his dog has a PS2. The market penetration in Japan is the highest based on percentage of the overall population.

 

[mckmas8808]

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.

I choose number 2. If they had pushed back the launch date 3 weeks, would that have hurt the launch that much? Like you said Xbox as a brand isn't that high in the Japanese mind anyway. What's wrong with pushing it back a few weeks until the games come out?

 

[Edge]

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.

Microsoft will never give up, because they see a threat from consoles against their core operating system sales. Whether that threat exists or not, is something that can be debated.

 

[Phil]

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.

I agree with Bobbler. In addition, I'd like to add that an equal marketshare among two or more competitors will also increase the load of multi-platform targeted software - which, thanks to their nature, will make even worse use of the hardware. How this benefits the consumer is beyond me, really. Also, as I already mentioned (which you ignored), unless any of the competitors make any effort to change the cycle process (starting new with every console generation), there's no reason to suggest it'll end up being a monopoly. If consumers and publishers support it even more, they'll likely increase their marketshare, sure, but they couldn't afford to waste time on milking the market for an extended period, since this would make it easy for new competitors to come up with a better product publishers would jump to. There are examples of when this happened in the past: Square jumping ship to Sony for various reasons, Sony taking over the console industry despite a very dominant Nintendo, PSP's entry as a new competitor into the handheld space where Nintendo didn't have any competition (*note: That didn't stop Nintendo from releasing newer hardware didn't it?).

Fact is; there is no monopoly and there won't be for some time unless one of the dominant player changes their strategy. There is competition and if the competition can't sell their product successfully (for example Microsoft in Japan), then they're obviously doing something wrong and that's hardly the fault of Sony nor are the consumers. If demand is there for that product, people will buy.

Another thing which you ignored is, that a too short cycle isn't to any benefit for the consumer either. The best software usually launches in the second half of a console's life because assets / libraries are around enabling software developers to recycle existing code and concentrate on other aspects that will enhance our gaming-experience. It also enables them to make more money (through lower costs) which will in turm give them the opportunity to invest into newer hardware / new assets / new libraries when the hardware shift occurs.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The market is staturated. Everyone and his dog has a PS2. The market penetration in Japan is the highest based on percentage of the overall population.

So there are less then 20 million people (and dogs) in Japan?

 

[expletive]

I choose number 2. If they had pushed back the launch date 3 weeks, would that have hurt the launch that much? Like you said Xbox as a brand isn't that high in the Japanese mind anyway. What's wrong with pushing it back a few weeks until the games come out?

Whats the BENEFIT of pushing the console back a few weeks and risking confusion against all their marketing efforts? Just so a some xbox fanbois can claim they 'sold out' on a forum? If hte games are good, the console will sell, regardless of whether they come out now or in a month from now. I know we'd like ot htink that people are more likely to buy a console on launch day than at any other point in its lifecycles but thats simply not the case. (Its actually far more likely to sell when its price reaches $149 than launch day. )

 

[expletive]

I agree with Bobbler. In addition, I'd like to add that an equal marketshare among two or more competitors will also increase the load of multi-platform targeted software - which, thanks to their nature, will make even worse use of the hardware. How this benefits the consumer is beyond me, really. Also, as I already mentioned (which you ignored), unless any of the competitors make any effort to change the cycle process (starting new with every console generation), there's no reason to suggest it'll end up being a monopoly. If consumers and publishers support it even more, they'll likely increase their marketshare, sure, but they couldn't afford to waste time on milking the market for an extended period, since this would make it easy for new competitors to come up with a better product publishers would jump to. There are examples of when this happened in the past: Square jumping ship to Sony for various reasons, Sony taking over the console industry despite a very dominant Nintendo, PSP's entry as a new competitor into the handheld space where Nintendo didn't have any competition (*note: That didn't stop Nintendo from releasing newer hardware didn't it?).

Fact is; there is no monopoly and there won't be for some time unless one of the dominant player changes their strategy. There is competition and if the competition can't sell their product successfully (for example Microsoft in Japan), then they're obviously doing something wrong and that's hardly the fault of Sony nor are the consumers. If demand is there for that product, people will buy.

Another thing which you ignored is, that a too short cycle isn't to any benefit for the consumer either. The best software usually launches in the second half of a console's life because assets / libraries are around enabling software developers to recycle existing code and concentrate on other aspects that will enhance our gaming-experience. It also enables them to make more money (through lower costs) which will in turm give them the opportunity to invest into newer hardware / new assets / new libraries when the hardware shift occurs.

I didnt ignore any of your arguments, they just arent relevant to what i'm saying. You can argue very specific points of economics but you really need to take a more 'macro' view here. But rather than bang our heads together on this i'll just give in and hope,along with the rest of the Sony contingent, that MS and nintendo get pounded into salt this generation. Then maybe i'll see how its actually better for consumers that Sony is the only game in town.

 

[Phil]

I didnt ignore any of your arguments, they just arent relevant to what i'm saying. You can argue very specific points of economics but you really need to take a more 'macro' view here. But rather than bang our heads together on this i'll just give in and hope,along with the rest of the Sony contingent, that MS and nintendo get pounded into salt this generation. Then maybe i'll see how its actually better for consumers that Sony is the only game in town.

Then, sadly, I'm really not sure what you're arguing here in the first place. If your post was directed at the people that want to see Microsoft fail, take your somewhat "personal" argument and direct it at them directly. I'm simply arguing your view that a Sony dominated console industry (which it already is taking their marketshare into account) would be necessarely a bad thing for the consumer. It's clearly a two edged sword. As one of those consumers your arguing for, I wouldn't mind the first next generation console launching a year later - simply because quite frankly, some of the most anticipated titles are yet to launch (late 2006 for me) and I see the consoles still have room to improve. If graphics and technological advancement is the only thing you see in console-gaming, I suggest you switch over to the PC side.

 

[nelg]

I agree with Bobbler. In addition, I'd like to add that an equal marketshare among two or more competitors will also increase the load of multi-platform targeted software - which, thanks to their nature, will make even worse use of the hardware. How this benefits the consumer is beyond me, really.

OTOH a more evenly distributed market share could prevent any strong arm tactics that prevent Devs. from porting games from one platform to the next. Which is a loss for the consumer. I am not suggesting that exclusives would stop. It would just have to be way more enticing (cough money) for Devs to agree to them.

 

[Bobbler]

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.

I don't see this problem happening. But I can understand the concern.

I would bet that MS won't ditch the console market until it has full control over it like it does the OS market -- I fear this a lot more than I do Sony continuing to dominate, because I know MS will stick around and I know Nintendo will as long as it still makes profit (which doesn't seem to be a problem for them).

As long as there is competition in the market it is fine (especially in this case where the competitors aren't likely to just ditch the market) -- you seem to be basing your opinion that everything is bad on a belief of what might happen, not what is currently happening. But, if what you say does happen, I would also consider that possibly bad (just like MS controlling the OS market is possibly bad -- it's sort of hard to tell).

 

[blakjedi]

I would have preferred:

- MS launch a higher spec'ced 360 in 2006 than a lower one in 2005.

- Xenos with larger Edram

- Xenos closer to R600 technologically and speed wise

- Xenon with larger L2 cache

- Either a four core chip or two dual core CPUs

- MS go head to head and toe to toe with Sony at launch in 2006 with the benefit of extra development time (both HW and SW) (What hell are they so afraid of?)

- A worldwide launch fall 06

- No MTV specials

-More CG "representations of gameplay" until they knew exactly what they were up against in PS3.

- Better marketing. The fools that marketed Dreamcast (which I loved) are the fools now marketing 360... Thats the only ironic thing about this launch.

-More boxes for NA and Europe and NO boxes for JP until the games were ready.

-Real exclusives from big companies. Splinter Cell 4 and RE5 and a brand new, big budget non FF franchise from SE should have all been nailed down.

- Madden been a real Madden.

I'll think of more.

 

[mckmas8808]

I would have preferred:

-More CG "representations of gameplay" until they knew exactly what they were up against in PS3.

- Better marketing. The fools that marketed Dreamcast (which I loved) are the fools now marketing 360... Thats the only ironic thing about this launch.

-More boxes for NA and Europe and NO boxes for JP until the games were ready.

-Real exclusives from big companies. Splinter Cell 4 and RE5 and a brand new, big budget non FF franchise from SE should have all been nailed down.

- Madden been a real Madden.

I like these the most.

 

[blakjedi]

I like these the most.

U want MTV specials?

 

[avaya]

I think the most important issue for the console market is that it's contestable. If it's contestable, which it definitely is owed to the hardware cycles, market share should become almost an irrelevance for those wishing for an "optimal" solution.

 

[expletive]

I don't see this problem happening. But I can understand the concern.

I would bet that MS won't ditch the console market until it has full control over it like it does the OS market -- I fear this a lot more than I do Sony continuing to dominate, because I know MS will stick around and I know Nintendo will as long as it still makes profit (which doesn't seem to be a problem for them).

As long as there is competition in the market it is fine (especially in this case where the competitors aren't likely to just ditch the market) -- you seem to be basing your opinion that everything is bad on a belief of what might happen, not what is currently happening. But, if what you say does happen, I would also consider that possibly bad (just like MS controlling the OS market is possibly bad -- it's sort of hard to tell).

Thanks for meeting me half way here and i agree. It just seems to me, at this point, MS doesnt even have the 'niche' 15% that we're talking about for this business to remain viable for them. Once they have that, its open season. However, I do still think theres a chance they could pull out of the industry, if only in that region.

 

[Sis]

I think the most important issue for the console market is that it's contestable. If it's contestable, which it definitely is owed to the hardware cycles, market share should become almost an irrelevance for those wishing for an "optimal" solution.

I agree with this notion. I think a market actually has a natural preference for a monopoly, especially if you think in terms of formats (and if you consider the PS2 a video game format).

I'm not convinced that a monopoly is a bad thing, generation to generation. Currently--due to system exclusives--I'm forced to buy two or more consoles and research which game is the best of a multiplatform release. This hardly seems consumer friendly.

.Sis

 

[AlphaWolf]

I agree with this notion. I think a market actually has a natural preference for a monopoly, especially if you think in terms of formats (and if you consider the PS2 a video game format).

I'm not convinced that a monopoly is a bad thing, generation to generation. Currently--due to system exclusives--I'm forced to buy two or more consoles and research which game is the best of a multiplatform release. This hardly seems consumer friendly.

.Sis

If there was a monopoly you would just be paying more for the one console. Consider yourself lucky to have options.

 

[mckmas8808]

U want MTV specials?

I want good ones. The MS MTV special was kinda lame. You know what I don't want MTV specials you're right.

 

[Sis]

If there was a monopoly you would just be paying more for the one console. Consider yourself lucky to have options.

I'm already paying more in effect by buying 3 consoles.

.Sis

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm already paying more in effect by buying 3 consoles.

.Sis

You'd rather pay the same for just 1? I think you'd be in the minority.