Support NeoGAF

[seismologist]

I would say the 3 biggest selling points of Xbox are

1. Hardware better than PS2
2. Price lower than PS2
3. Xbox Live

It's not the games. Halo wouldn't be the number one seller every month.
People buy an Xbox and the only game they know is Halo.

 

[Manders]

You don't think the Xbox has good games aside from Halo? It's not selling on hardware alone you know?

MS isn't releasing any good games other than Halo, or at least games that are successful. Sure Xbox has lots of 3rd party games that are great, but very, very few first party games that are great.

 

[human5892]

Xbox is selling fairly well along side PS2, of course you can't take compare total sold because Sony is what? nearly 2 years ahead of the curve?

As Lisa said, the Xbox routinely gets its ass beat in the monthlies by the PS2 (and the GC on rare occasions). It has been having a decent past month or two because of its price drop, but that's hardly cause to say that it's catching up or even close to it.

In short, even if you discount the months that PS2 was on sale before GC and Xbox, it still comes out way, way ahead of either of those systems.

 

[DarienA]

I would say the 3 biggest selling points of Xbox are

1. Hardware better than PS2
2. Price lower than PS2
3. Xbox Live

It's not the games. Halo wouldn't be the number one seller every month.
People buy an Xbox and the only game they know is Halo.

#1 isn't helping Nintendo.
#2 uh..... that didn't last long.
#3 Granted but then we get back in to the is the broadband penetration in US enough to affect sales? I'd hazard that yes there are a large percentage of Xbox owners online over PS2 owners... but is that driving sales? I don't necessarily think that's the case.

 

[Necroscope]

I think the battleground of next gen system will include the fight for emerging Asia marekts like China. Consumers in the chinese market are getting used to play Japanese games and the American flavour XBOX Next titles wouldn't impress much over there. Combine the exsisting Japanese market and emerging ones like China and Korea, you got a pretty big piece of turf to fight for. MS doesn't understand what Asia markets want from electronic appliances and games, let's hope XBOX Next is not fucking huge and its look is more refined and sophisticated. A huge piece of green plastic spells doom in Asia.

On the other hand, Sony is well connceted to the consumer electronic business in Asia. One of the biggest selling and fastest growing gaming platform in Asia is mobile phone. I am sure at some point, Sony will connect PS3 with their cellphones and PSP and provide multiplayer content that is on the go. Also don't forget Sony will exploit all its enterainment powee like Movies and Music content to push the success of PSP, PS3 and cellphones. MS has none of these infrustrcture. Gaming is not used to be in Asia. It is not about simply sitting in front of your TV and tapping buttons on the controller.

You know, I like my Japanese games as much as anyone, but they're only like a fourth of the market now. It's not really arrogance that drives people to say Xbox doesn't need Japan, it really just doesn't.

It'd be nice if they played a little more smart with the Japanese market, but I can honestly see them overtaking Sony in the US if they keep thinking forward like they are now.

With Sony's attention divided on PSP and PS3, they're vulnerable and trying to fight a battle on two fronts. Fighting Nintendo in the handheld market and fighting MS and Nintendo in the console realm. Brand loyalty may have won them this round, but with Xbox's powerful showing this gen, Sony isn't going to have an easy victory next time.

They won't have a launch advantage, they likely won't have a signifigant hardware advantage, they'll have to start a real online service, their first party content still isn't the calibur or Nintendo or even MS and, once again, its their own proprietary hardware which they likely won't help developers figure out. Nintendo and MS will have ATI and make life easier on devs (again).

 

[levious]

Xbox is selling fairly well along side PS2, of course you can't take compare total sold because Sony is what? nearly 2 years ahead of the curve?

Nearly 13 months

 

[DopeyFish]

didn't ps2 launch march 2000 in japan and october 2000 in usa? or was it october 2000 for Japan and march 2001 for PS2, i forgets.

 

[jedimike]

I would say the 3 biggest selling points of Xbox are

1. Hardware better than PS2 - I agree
2. Price lower than PS2 - ???
3. Xbox Live - maybe

It's not the games. Halo wouldn't be the number one seller every month.
People buy an Xbox and the only game they know is Halo.

LOL

There's this little thing called an attach rate that blows your theory right out of the water. I would say the 3 biggest selling points of Xbox are...

1. price per value - lots of extra feautures
2. increased acceptability - my friend says it's cool so I want one
3. game selection - already well over 400 games

...but this shouldn't be confused with Xenon. Xenon doesn't have to follow the Xbox formula to succeed. It can certainly have it's own selling features that may be different from Xbox's.

 

[WasabiKing]

Fairly well since the price drop or before that? And why brush off the two year lead? Is that Sony's fault?

Hell let's just brush off any Sony exclusive titles while we're at it.....

Here's my favorite argument.

"The XBox is so technological advanced! It has ONE YEAR on the PS2! It's old, LOLOLOL! It's doomed to fail!"

...

"The reason why XBox can't catch up is because the PS2 came out two years before the XBox!"

Do me a favor guys, take a stand, and stay consistent. Thanks.

 

[human5892]

didn't ps2 launch march 2000 in japan and october 2000 in usa? or was it october 2000 for Japan and march 2001 for PS2, i forgets.

You're right -- it launched in the US on 10/26/00. Xbox and GC came roughly a year later (GC September, Xbox November IIRC).

 

[drohne]

if sony falters in japan, that isn't automatically a victory for nintendo -- it's entirely possible that the market will simply contract rather than turn towards the "revolution." gamecube hasn't been strong at all, and it seems to be waning.

 

[DopeyFish]

I think the battleground of next gen system will include the fight for emerging Asia marekts like China. Consumers in the chinese market are getting used to play Japanese games and the American flavour XBOX Next titles wouldn't impress much over there. Combine the exsisting Japanese market and emerging ones like China and Korea, you got a pretty big piece of turf to fight for. MS doesn't understand what Asia markets want from electronic appliances and games, let's hope XBOX Next is not fucking huge and its look is more refined and sophisticated. A huge piece of green plastic spells doom in Asia.

On the other hand, Sony is well connceted to the consumer electronic business in Asia. One of the biggest selling and fastest growing gaming platform in Asia is mobile phone. I am sure at some point, Sony will connect PS3 with their cellphones and PSP and provide multiplayer content that is on the go. Also don't forget Sony will exploit all its enterainment powee like Movies and Music content to push the success of PSP, PS3 and cellphones. MS has none of these infrustrcture. Gaming is not used to be in Asia. It is not about simply sitting in front of your TV and tapping buttons on the controller.

wait wait... i know sometimes i talk for my country, but saying Asia or China and saying what they want like one orgy of an opinion uttered from your glorious mouth. You're talking half the world. But wait, no, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING! What about the north american games that koreans enjoy? Sony leveraging the motion picture/music industry? What about Microsoft leveraging the Windows OS and networking ability? I'm fairly sure a lot of people use things such as MSN and Windows. Werd.

 

[seismologist]

#1 isn't helping Nintendo.
#2 uh..... that didn't last long.
#3 Granted but then we get back in to the is the broadband penetration in US enough to affect sales? I'd hazard that yes there are a large percentage of Xbox owners online over PS2 owners... but is that driving sales? I don't necessarily think that's the case.

#1 Xbox offers the same style games as PS2 but with better graphics.
#2 actually it's been priced lower than PS2 for a while dating back to the 2 free game bundles.
#3 you may be right about Live. I think #1 and #2 are the biggest reasons.

Consumers are always looking for a bargain. Right now Xbox is sort of positioned as a PS2 alternative that gives you more bang for your buck.

 

[Wulfer]

DopeyFish it doesn't matter if it was a year or two years the point is they had a year in the market place by themselves after DC was gone. Their just tryin to be little your point DopeyFish. Year is still a year people. Total shock Sony's winning.... (whatever)

 

[6.8]

Damn, and I bought the Xbox because I like the games. I guess I'm in the minority.

 

[Mr_Furious]

I think Sega might agree with me as this is far, far more like the Genesis situation than the DC which should be obvious but has to be explained every damn thread.

I don't see the comparison to the birth of the 16-bit market and to compare the two generations in this day and age doesn't make any sense because the market is completely different than it was back then. Also don't forget Sega's Saturn attempt. 1 out of 3 isn't much of a track record to prove releasing 1st equals "winner".

 

[levious]

Also don't forget Sega's Saturn attempt.

what? Their most successful console in Japan? Just like you said, comparisons are worthless.

 

[Mr_Furious]

what? Their most successful console in Japan? Just like you said, comparisons are worthless.

Point taken but I'm talking about the U.S. market.

 

[DarienA]

DopeyFish it doesn't matter if it was a year or two years the point is they had a year in the market place by themselves after DC was gone. Their just tryin to be little your point DopeyFish. Year is still a year people. Total shock Sony's winning.... (whatever)

Yes because in that year Sony didn't do anything in terms of put out any games worth having... so the thing was just bought because people had nothing better to do while waiting for the GC and Xbox came out.

#1 Xbox offers the same style games as PS2 but with better graphics.
#2 actually it's been priced lower than PS2 for a while dating back to the 2 free game bundles.
#3 you may be right about Live. I think #1 and #2 are the biggest reasons.

Consumers are always looking for a bargain. Right now Xbox is sort of positioned as a PS2 alternative that gives you more bang for your buck.

#1 Same style of games? Oh no you didn't just pull out the GC is kiddy argument did you?

#2 I personally am under the opinion that those bundles didn't do a whole helluva alot... but has the PS2 had bundles on and off as well?

 

[Solid]

If MS play their cards right they might have a chance against Sony next gen. But right now they don't have a chance of beating them.

Xbox Next + Perfect Dark, PGR3, DOA Chronus and a new good game at launch would definitely not lower their odds. Let's hope so. Good competition is great for us customers.

 

[levious]

Yes because in that year Sony didn't do anything in terms of put out any games worth having... so the thing was just bought because people had nothing better to do while waiting for the GC and Xbox came out.

YES, and consumers had to purchase two systems! SHODDY SYSTEMS!!

 

[Wulfer]

Two things kept the PS2 saling that year.

1. The often over hyped shortage. (I give Sony this, the marketing of a shortage on the hardware from Jan. to Aug. was a stroke of genuis if they marketed the system that way.)

2. GT 3 (It's coming, It's coming)

 

[DarienA]

Two things kept the PS2 saling that year.

1. The often over hyped shortage. (I give Sony this, the marketing of a shortage on the hardware from Jan. to Aug. was a stroke of genuis if they marketed the system that way.)

2. GT 3 (It's coming, It's coming)

Please stop I don't feel well today and it hurts to laugh this much.

 

[levious]

and DC was not gone when PS2 launched.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I don't see the comparison to the birth of the 16-bit market and to compare the two generations in this day and age doesn't make any sense because the market is completely different than it was back then. Also don't forget Sega's Saturn attempt. 1 out of 3 isn't much of a track record to prove releasing 1st equals "winner".

It's still closer than the other two, whether the market has changed or not.

Saturn differences:

- The Saturn came in after a generation of a practically equal footing with its rival. The Xbox is not on an equal footing with the PS2.

- The Saturn didn't just launch early, it was rushed. Extremely rushed. Xenon developers will have known the system is coming out early for a long time by the time it launches.

- The Saturn came up against a brand new, serious and in terms of gaming, unknown competitor. The Xenon (as far as we know) won't.

DC differences:

- Sega had fuck all money to cover any problems, MS have loads.

- The last Sega system was a failure, the Xbox hasn't been.

- The DC launched after a gap where there had been no Sega console on the market at all, the Xenon won't.

- EA will undoubtedly be on board the Xenon, they weren't with the DC. For the casual gamer especially, there's no company more important to have (in the west).

Genesis on the other hand has lots of similarities:

- Coming out earlier than your rivals.

- Coming off the back of a decent, but not hugely successful generation.

- While Sega were never MS, they were much more financially secure than with any of the other systems.

 

[budala1]

especially once they forfit their hardware advantage. They lose a major selling point of the Xbox.

That's what I have been saying the whole time

 

[human5892]

The problem with the Genesis comparison is that the Genesis largely succeeded because Sega was offering something Nintendo wasn't: a console geared more towards adult players that featured more emphasis on sports games. Xenon does not have a new market to carve out, and therefore does not have this advantage.

 

[levious]

aren't the saturn and Dreamcast's worldwide market shares at the time pretty comparable to xbox and GC today?

 

[Mama Smurf]

I never said they were exact, I'm just pointing out that the last time a company launched early without screwing up in some way (or already being screwed up), they did well.

Besides, even with the Genesis offering something the SNES wasn't, I don't think it'd have done half as well if it hadn't launched early too. It would have been an improvement over the generation before, sure, but I don't think it would have pulled level.

 

[drohne]

and it's also worth noting that the genesis didn't really take off until sonic the hedgehog, which came after the snes. i don't necessarily think you can argue that the early launch was a key factor in its success.

 

[Soul4ger]

You're right -- it launched in the US on 10/26/00. Xbox and GC came roughly a year later (GC September, Xbox November IIRC).

Xbox and GC actually came out three days apart, in November. The fifteenth for the Xbox, the eighteenth for the GC. Nintendo was supposed to launch it in September, but delayed it.

 

[human5892]

Xbox and GC actually came out three days apart, in November. The fifteenth for the Xbox, the eighteenth for the GC. Nintendo was supposed to launch it in September, but delayed it.

Oh, that's right -- because of September 11th, wasn't it?

I should've known that, seeing as how I bought a GC on launch day.

 

[Mr_Furious]

I never said they were exact, I'm just pointing out that the last time a company launched early without screwing up in some way (or already being screwed up), they did well.

Besides, even with the Genesis offering something the SNES wasn't, I don't think it'd have done half as well if it hadn't launched early too. It would have been an improvement over the generation before, sure, but I don't think it would have pulled level.

Genesis released some 15 years ago when both the industry and the market were still in their infancy and cannot be compared to in any real significant way. I believe that history has proven more so that releasing first never really proves (or increases) one's chances of succeeding.

 

[Greekboy]

DopeyFish it doesn't matter if it was a year or two years the point is they had a year in the market place by themselves after DC was gone. Their just tryin to be little your point DopeyFish. Year is still a year people. Total shock Sony's winning.... (whatever)

Must be dopey's alternate account.

 

[Cubsfan23]

Didn't the vast majority of this forum predict Xbox would last shorter than the Dreamcast, in 2001? Save your fruitless predictions for Nintendo.

 

[DarienA]

Didn't the vast majority of this forum predict Xbox would last shorter than the Dreancast, in 2001? Save your fruitless predictions for Nintendo.

"vast majority"

Didn't your mother teach you that generalizations are a bad, bad thing? They make Baby Jesus cry yes they do... now go run along and drink your glass of mlik.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Well, despite the fact that XBOX 1 is pretty much a total failure in Japan, I'd say that Ballmer's not looney...well, he is kinda crazy, but the statement isn't. I'm wondering if MS has some cards to play this next gen regarding more significant Japanese support... This is the only thing it's missing, as far as software support goes. I still don't think winning in Japan is necessary anymore.

 

[DarienA]

Well, despite the fact that XBOX 1 is pretty much a total failure in Japan, I'd say that Ballmer's not looney...well, he is kinda crazy, but the statement isn't. I'm wondering if MS has some cards to play this next gen regarding more significant Japanese support... This is the only thing it's missing, as far as software support goes. I still don't think winning in Japan is necessary anymore.

Square Enix support from the start would surely be nice...

 

[BeOnEdge]

I would say the 3 biggest selling points of Xbox are

It's not the games. Halo wouldn't be the number one seller every month.
People buy an Xbox and the only game they know is Halo.

you could say the same for the ps2 when the only game people knew was GT3

 

[Mama Smurf]

Genesis released some 15 years ago when both the industry and the market were still in their infancy and cannot be compared to in any real significant way. I believe that history has proven more so that releasing first never really proves (or increases) one's chances of succeeding.

The industry is still in its infancy really.

The problem with this argument is that there is no system which has done exactly the same thing as the Xenon is going to. No system has ever done the same thing as any other system. I'm just going for the closest one.

I disagree that launching first doesn't help. You can go back to the NES to see that it does (I'd go back further, but I really don't have a clue with systems before then). The NES launched earlier than the Master System and finished ahead, the Genesis launched earlier than the SNES and closed the massive gap until they were almost on a par, the Playstation launched earlier than the N64 and again finished ahead, the PS2 launched ahead of the Xbox and GC and has an unassailable lead.

The only ones which don't fit are the Saturn, which wasn't just early it was rushed, and the DC, which had so many things going against it that it never really had much hope.

Now I know that there are multiple factors in every single one of those systems beating (or gaining on) the others. Sometimes there were definitely things more important than launching beforehand. But it doesn't change the fact that every generation we've had an early launcher who's done well.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Exactly. The gap between a potentially early Xenon launch and the others is not going to be big, particularly in terms of technology.

 

[jarrod]

I don't see the comparison to the birth of the 16-bit market and to compare the two generations in this day and age doesn't make any sense because the market is completely different than it was back then. Also don't forget Sega's Saturn attempt. 1 out of 3 isn't much of a track record to prove releasing 1st equals "winner".

Saturn wasn't the first 32bit platform on the market, and it had a neglibible release lead over PlayStation. A limited release 4 months early is hardly the same as Genesis Vs SNES or DC Vs PS2.

 

[wazoo]

the Genesis launched earlier than the SNES and closed the massive gap until they were almost on a par,

SNES sold 20M+ units over the Genesis worldwide.

 

[BeOnEdge]

the snes was also selling for like 2-3 years after the genesis era ended. i was playing sf alpha 2 on saturn while one of my friends had the SNES version.

 

[Matlock]

Man, times like this (Referencing TToB's post) make me really yearn for the times of :lol.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I also think it's important to look at it the other way round. The only time a console maker has managed to hold onto the same strong lead from one generation to the next has been this time round, with Sony going from the the Playstation to the PS2. Why? Because they took their huge popularity from one generation and moved onto the next while the others were still getting their consoles ready. Everytime the leader of one generation has gone onto the next and given rivals the chance to bring their consoles to the market first, they've suffered because of it.

 

[TheDiave]

If Revolution is the real deal, Nintendo will have somehting to say also.

Amen, brotha!

Viva La Revolution!

 

[levious]

the snes was also selling for like 2-3 years after the genesis era ended. i was playing sf alpha 2 on saturn while one of my friends had the SNES version.

and the genesis was selling 2 years before the snes era started.

 

[Kiriku]

There's only one safe prediction to make about the videogame market: it's unpredictable.

 

[BeOnEdge]

and the genesis was selling 2 years before the snes era started.

errr....against the NES with like barely any 3rd party support? try again.