360 sells 6 million in europe
- Thread starter geordie10
- Start date
Why do people get confused sometimes? A 10 yr cycle or at least a long cycle, much like the PS2 is having, and the PS1 before it (albeit not 10yrs) means that Sony will continue to produce and support the console for that length of time. It does not mean that the PS4 will come out 10yrs after the PS3 launch, it will come out prob in 2011-2012.
Do you actually work for Microsoft Ian? If I didn't already have one you'd be convincing me to buy one
No i dont work for MS.
I am a retired service manager from a large motor dealer.
Had a decent lottery win and retired early.
I have owned nearly all the consoles from an atari 2600 up to the 360 and ps3.
I am just interested in the competition between Sony and MS.
Who would have thought that MS with all the problems with console failures would be doing as well as they are.
Even Sony thought that when they launched there new console they would take the market.
With a bank account as large as Microsofts, nearly anything is possible
That's not what got them through this though, but you knew that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,246
All my friends sold their PS3's yesterday for 360's
LIVE is too good compared to PSN.
Luckily I got both already
I reckon by end of this generation, PS3 will have finally got it right, and hopefully by that time it'll only be as cheap as the 360.
Then I'll play MGS4, which is all I want.. I couldn't be bothered to go round mates house every day to play it
Is it not though? Not many companies could shrug off a $1bn hit by lowering their products retail price shortly after. The software side of the 360 is epic, that's a no brainer to admit, but the hardware side has cost them well... more than a billion dollars.
As it goes, the main reason why Microsoft is still in the console market is due to their massive bank account, most other companies would have had to throw in the towel by now. The second reason is that it is now a fantastic piece of kit, the software side has always been ahead of the competition and the hardware caught up a while ago. Sadly, as the Dreamcast has proven in the past - delivering a good product isn't everything.
(Finally, this part isn't aimed at you Kreee, just a disclaimer to avoid dispute)
As i've stated several times in the above text, the 360 is very good, i'm not slating it in any way. All i'm saying is that Microsoft in my opinion certainly wouldn't be in the position they are now in the console market if it wasn't for the huge amount of funds backing up their project. There's nothing wrong with a company having lots of money!
I believe the shareholders had given ultimatums on when the 360 had to start making a profit which meant that MS could not just keep throwing money at it. No doubt it was an expensive project and money helped but it just simply isn't a case of keep throwing money at it until it works.
Oh i don't disagree, but i would be willing to bet the shareholders ultimatum was a pretty generous one - $1bn loss isn't really going to have much of an impact on Microsofts share prices. As i stated in my above post; it isn't just throwing money at it, you can't polish a turd after all, the product is sound, but it has taken quite a financial blow in it's lifetime.
Since the price drop MS has had a 32% increase in sales.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/xbox-360-sales-up-32-per-cent-following-uk-price-cut
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/xbox-360-sales-up-32-per-cent-following-uk-price-cut
Is it not though? Not many companies could shrug off a $1bn hit by lowering their products retail price shortly after. The software side of the 360 is epic, that's a no brainer to admit, but the hardware side has cost them well... more than a billion dollars.
As it goes, the main reason why Microsoft is still in the console market is due to their massive bank account, most other companies would have had to throw in the towel by now. The second reason is that it is now a fantastic piece of kit, the software side has always been ahead of the competition and the hardware caught up a while ago. Sadly, as the Dreamcast has proven in the past - delivering a good product isn't everything.
(Finally, this part isn't aimed at you Kreee, just a disclaimer to avoid dispute)
As i've stated several times in the above text, the 360 is very good, i'm not slating it in any way. All i'm saying is that Microsoft in my opinion certainly wouldn't be in the position they are now in the console market if it wasn't for the huge amount of funds backing up their project. There's nothing wrong with a company having lots of money!
I think largely Sony and MS operate in the same way, they have bankrolled their new consoles onto the market, we'd need exact figures on this, but I think if you take the large subsidy on the hardware/development costs/lower attach rate of the PS3, would they be so different to the 360's figures?
Nintendo have shown the way to go, cheap tech correctly aimed at the market has netted them profit from day 1.
Would you say the same about the R&D and losses per console sold with the PS3?
No as the R&D and sales costs of the PS3, 360 and Wii will have been predicted expenditures and so the company will be prepared for those losses. The $1bn hit Microsoft suffered can only be put down to a mistake (unless Microsoft really ARE as evil as some people say and they knew their product would be this faulty and prepared for the cost
) and therefore i don't place it in the same class as anticipated costs.source?
I can't find a source, but Kreee is right, i remember years ago when the first Xbox was failing Microsoft announced they had until a certain date (2010 iirc?) to be in profit or else the xbox project would be abandonned.
I THINK they're not in profit yet, but the rate things are going it can't be long.
They've made a per-console profit for a long time now but their overall loss is quite large still.