Support NeoGAF

[ziran]

Reuters

i posted this from gamesindustry.biz yesterday. it talks about microsoft cutting the cost of xbox 360, with gamesindustry.biz implying 360 will see retail price cuts yearly. however, this article didn't match the quote microsoft gave. i've found the original article they quoted [from reuters], which paints a different picture. this indicates microsoft will actually be reluctant to drop 360's retail unless they have to, and that microsoft is far more concerned with profitability next gen.

extracts:

...Analysts have estimated that Microsoft had operating losses of more than $4 billion from the first Xbox, which it introduced nearly four years ago....



...Now Microsoft wants to get many more of its next-generation consoles to market faster, buoyed by a wider selection of titles and an improved ability to keep costs in check.
"We will wind up cost-reducing the product every year," Todd Holmdahl, corporate vice president of the Xbox product group, said in a recent interview.
Microsoft is working to break-even on the Xbox 360 hardware in the the first year or two -- roughly the first third in its expected six to seven-year console cycle...



...The first Xbox was built with off-the-shelf components, including an Intel processor and an Nvidia graphics chip. That configuration got Microsoft to market relatively quickly, but limited its ability to control performance and cost...



...Microsoft, which is aiming to double its market share to up to 40 percent, is less willing than before to subsidize console sales with more lucrative video game software, Piper Jaffray analyst Anthony Gikas said, citing management discussions...



...IDC video game analyst Schelley Olhava expects Microsoft to see results from its new strategy. By 2009, she's forecasting an Xbox 360 installed base of about 40 million units, vs. 49 million for the PS3...

 

[Amir0x]

40% would be a real nice win there for Microsoft.

Oh, and six to seven years now for you eh Microsoft. Nice improvement over 4 or 5

 

[DCharlie]

"roughly the first third in its expected six to seven-year console cycle..."

Bach used the expression "for the next 5 years" in relation to support for the X360 cycle in japan...

i'm not sure he was supposed to say that, but i took it as confirmation that MS would push ahead with shorter cycles.

 

[Amir0x]

The shorter cycles is horrible and I hope they do not continue that.

 

[FightyF]

5 years sounds good to me.

Especially since, y'know, in the next 5 years transistors are gonna be obsolete.

 

[ziran]

i'm finding the short cycles of console hardware difficult to understand.

firstly there's dev cost, which is becoming as high as developers dare go, regardless of whether the market expands or not. secondly, dev time. look at rare, they basically missed this gen to ready games for next gen!

imo, the videogames games market [consumers] is primarily concerned with playing games, not waiting for the next generation.

 

[The Faceless Master]

heh they had what, a 3 year cycle in japan/europe?

 

[Particle Physicist]

5 years sounds good to me.

Especially since, y'know, in the next 5 years transistors are gonna be obsolete.

5 years for xbox 360.. even less for its successor (if there is one) ....

 

[Shard]

The shorter cycles is horrible and I hope they do not continue that.

Agreed, especally in light of that we are just this year getting a true feel of what the creent consoles can actually do.

 

[Shompola]

heh they had what, a 3 year cycle in japan/europe?

4.5 years. oops I ment 3.5 years. quite pathatic... so the cycle was only 4 years in NA.

 

[quetz67]

I predict a price war like never before. It will be bad if xbox 360 is successfull because Sony will fight with all means. If xbox 360 isnt that successful Microsoft will (have to) start the price war.

 

[DarienA]

4.5 years. oops I ment 3.5 years. quite pathatic... so the cycle was only 4 years in NA.

3.5 in Japan? Shit no wonder there's a huge hurdle to climb in Japan, I didn't realize the cycle was that short... the few consumers there who bought it are like... WTF? I just bought your damn original console....

 

[soundwave05]

For all of those clamouring for Nintendo to do exactly what Sony and MS do ... this is why they can't.

Nintendo doesn't have a OS division or a movie division or an electronics division to say to their shareholders:

"Well we're going to be unprofitable with the game division for at least two years".

And I really doubt MS will be profitable in 2 years. 3 or 4 years down the line, maybe, but only after eating big losses.

 

[----]

5 years for xbox 360.. even less for its successor (if there is one) ....

:lol Analysts are predicting 45% marketshare for 360 and you're questioning whether there will be a follow-up? I've yet to hear of anyone in the industry who thinks MS will lose marketshare or have a less profitable system with Xbox 360.


5 years is the max I am willing to wait for a new console cycle.

Nintendo got greedy with the NES and tried to take 6 years, people got impatient and bought Genesis. Nintendo lost half of their marketshare. Sega also had the Genesis out for 6 years before moving onto Saturn. They lost all of their markeshare. Sony is now pushing 6 years with PS2.

Lifting a page from Sony's PS2 launch, Microsoft plans to have the Xbox 360 on U.S. store shelves on Nov. 22 -- months before the upcoming PS3 -- giving it a leg-up in market share and an edge with hard-core gamers willing to pay top dollar for the latest technology. Last time around, Sony beat Microsoft to market by slightly more than a year.

Interesting that Reuters is comparing Xbox 360 to PS2 and not Dreamcast, that's odd.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

5 years is suitable time for a new console. That is around the time I buy new PC's.

 

[soundwave05]

The NES really only had a standard 5 year life cycle.

It came out in test markets in late 1985, but that was like only availible in a few markets (New York) in very limited quantites.

The NES really wasn't launched nation-wide until 1986, and the SNES came out in 1991. Actually most retailers didn't carry the NES until 1987 because of being wary of game consoles.

The NES had a traditional five year console life cycle.

And the Genesis' headstart didn't do much for the system. Its sales really exploded only after 1990 when the SNES came out.

 

[----]

The NES really only had a standard 5 year life cycle.

It came out in test markets in late 1985, but that was like only availible in a few markets (New York) in very limited quantites.

The NES really wasn't launched nation-wide until 1986, and the SNES came out in 1991. Actually most retailers didn't carry the NES until 1987 because of being wary of game consoles.

The NES had a traditional five year console life cycle.

And the Genesis' headstart didn't do much for the system. Its sales really exploded only after 1990 when the SNES came out.

Well I got my NES in 1985 when Super Mario Bros. came out and I got my Genesis in 1991 when Sonic came out. I didn't get the Altered Beast version of Genesis which was released in 1989. Nintendo waited 1 year too late to release the SNES. The Genesis headstart did do something for Sega, they had a two year headstart and in the second year they came up with Sonic. The first year they didn't gain much ground, but by the 2nd year when Sonic debuted the Genesis really took off. Had SNES been out before 1991 things might have been different.

 

[soundwave05]

Sonic didn't come out actually until summer 1991. And even then that game really didn't take off until fall 1991.

What saved Sega and what caught Nintendo off guard was not the headstart, but really Sega's brilliant marketing and edgier branding. Prior to 1991, Sega's marketing was pretty ho-hum, they marketed the Genesis much the same way the Sega Master System was marketed. But by fall 1991 they had orchestrated a very specific marketing campaign that was less Sega and a lot more MTV.

But again, that's an example of a company chosing to do something different and being rewarded for it.

And while you may have had your NES in 1985, understand that 95% of retailers (probably more than that) in North America didn't even carry the machine until 1986.

A lot of people were still buying their NES in 1990, Super Mario Bros. 3 only came out in 1990 and that became the biggest selling video game of all time.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Interesting that Reuters is comparing Xbox 360 to PS2 and not Dreamcast, that's odd.

No, it's simple. It's because Sega is/has/was/never will be on Microsoft's level when it comes to a business. They have all the proponents together to fight to the death. Top flight at every level, every chain of command. Can you say that about Sega? Microsoft Games Studios kicks ass

Halo, Perfect Dark, Kameo, Conker, Mech Warrior, Flight Simulator, Shadowrun, Gears of War, Dungeon Siege, Project Gotham Racing, Forza, Jade Empire, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Crimson Skies.

Their IPs are what's happening now, not Sega's

Back to the topic at hand. Microsoft is more than a cut of Sega, they are easily Sony's biggest opposition in gaming

 

[TheInkyVoid]

Back to the topic at hand. Microsoft is more than a cut of Sega, they are easily Sony's biggest opposition in gaming

Is there any evidence that Sony is even aware that MS exists in the console market?

 

[McFly]

I've yet to hear of anyone in the industry who thinks MS will lose marketshare ...

They will lose marketshare next gen. Happy?

Fredi

 

[----]

No, it's simple. It's because Sega is/has/was/never will be on Microsoft's level when it comes to a business. They have all the proponents together to fight to the death. Top flight at every level, every chain of command. Can you say that about Sega? Microsoft Games Studios kicks ass

Halo, Perfect Dark, Kameo, Conker, Mech Warrior, Flight Simulator, Shadowrun, Gears of War, Dungeon Siege, Project Gotham Racing, Forza, Jade Empire, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Crimson Skies.

Their IPs are what's happening now, not Sega's

Back to the topic at hand. Microsoft is more than a cut of Sega, they are easily Sony's biggest opposition in gaming

Holy crap man I was kidding , did you not notice the

I was poking fun at the fact that everyone who sees the glass half empty says the 360 is launching too early like the Dreamcast and everyone who sees the glass half full says the 360 is launching at the right time like the PS2.

In fact Dreamcast came out 1998 in Japan and 1999 in US which is only 4 years after the Playstation. The Xbox 360 is coming out in 2005 which is exactly 5 years after the Playstation 2. Seems right on time. Plus the global launch has never been done before for a console and is exactly what they need to do. Provided they don't screw up the execution.

I don't think the Xbox 360 is like Dreamcast I was making fun of people who do.

 

[hadareud]

Is there any evidence that Sony is even aware that MS exists in the console market?

I wish I wasn't aware of your posts on this forum

 

[----]

Is there any evidence that Sony is even aware that MS exists in the console market?

Sony has done a heck of a lot more to attack Xbox 360 than Microsoft has done to attack PS3. MS has boasted that their online service is better or exists, but that's about it.

Several Sony executives have called Xbox 360, "Xbox 1.5" and then there's all the chatter about how the Cell chip is going to help them win the console wars. David Jaffe who works for Sony just came out of the woodwork and started bashing the Xbox 360 hardware recently. On the otherhand all MS has said with regards to PS3 is that they each have some advantages and they haven't really tried to claim superiority. Usually it's the underdog who is more aggressive.

When PS2 came out Sony just flat out said "we don't have any competition" and completely disregarded the Dreamcast. I don't see them acting that way towards the Xbox 360.



I don't think it will be as close as 49 million PS3 to 40 million Xbox 360 as the analysts are predicting though.

 

[Wulfer]

Is there any evidence that Sony is even aware that MS exists in the console market?

Well the first thing Sony showed was Killzone and now MGS4 I'd say their pretty aware that Halo exists and they are quite afraid of it.

 

[Prine]

Is there any evidence that Sony is even aware that MS exists in the console market?

Xbox Live, they've mentioned it a number of times.

 

[TheInkyVoid]

They will lose marketshare next gen. Happy?

Fredi

Best case for MS with the 360 is retaining some decent percentage of current xbox owners.

Most likely the hard core Sega('Sony killed the Dreamcast with teh Hype'/MS(MS is always teh winner') fans will not abandon the console no matter how much worse things get - if that is even possible. The 'most powerful' segment of the xbox installed base has shown clear signs of abanoning the console in droves. And it doesn't look good for the x86 gamer segment when 360 games are looking on par at best with current x86 games.

If someone can find a current PS2 owner who plans on buying a 360 and not a PS3, well that would be quite a find. Most likely the same for the Nintendo installed base.

Marketshare/installed base growth has to come from somewhere. It isn't like bank interest where you get it just for sticking around long enough.

The 360 is most likely looking at Dreamcast numbers right now. Maybe a little higher.

For the given set of exclusive IPs MS has secured for the 360, there is a hard cap on potential installed base. Roughly the same as the current xbox.

If the industry decision makers felt that MS had any chance for significant growth with the 360 there would be a major reshuffling of exclusive IP. That hasn't happened.

 

[----]

Best case for MS with the 360 is retaining some decent percentage of current xbox owners.

Most likely the hard core Sega('Sony killed the Dreamcast with teh Hype'/MS(MS is always teh winner') fans will not abandon the console no matter how much worse things get - if that is even possible. The 'most powerful' segment of the xbox installed base has shown clear signs of abanoning the console in droves. And it doesn't look good for the x86 gamer segment when 360 games are looking on par at best with current x86 games.

If someone can find a current PS2 owner who plans on buying a 360 and not a PS3, well that would be quite a find. Most likely the same for the Nintendo installed base.

Marketshare/installed base growth has to come from somewhere. It isn't like bank interest where you get it just for sticking around long enough.

The 360 is most likely looking at Dreamcast numbers right now. Maybe a little higher.

For the given set of exclusive IPs MS has secured for the 360, there is a hard cap on potential installed base. Roughly the same as the current xbox.

If the industry decision makers felt that MS had any chance for significant growth with the 360 there would be a major reshuffling of exclusive IP. That hasn't happened.

But what about the 9,222 people who won an Xbox 360, surely they will not toss their systems out on ebay?!?

I think there has been a reshuffling of exclusive IPs, Sony seems to have far fewer than they had at the very start of last generation. For example:

Castlevania
Resident Evil
Final Fantasy
Ridge Racer
Winning Eleven
Tenchu
Armored Core
Dynasty Warriors
Grand Theft Auto
Madden

Plus a ton of PC developers who are critical to western audiences have migrated over into the console space thanks to DirectX. Bungie, Epic, Valve, iD, Bioware, and many others are having a big impact on the console space now.

 

[Prine]

Best case for MS with the 360 is retaining some decent percentage of current xbox owners.

Most likely the hard core Sega('Sony killed the Dreamcast with teh Hype'/MS(MS is always teh winner') fans will not abandon the console no matter how much worse things get - if that is even possible. The 'most powerful' segment of the xbox installed base has shown clear signs of abanoning the console in droves. And it doesn't look good for the x86 gamer segment when 360 games are looking on par at best with current x86 games.

If someone can find a current PS2 owner who plans on buying a 360 and not a PS3, well that would be quite a find. Most likely the same for the Nintendo installed base.

Marketshare/installed base growth has to come from somewhere. It isn't like bank interest where you get it just for sticking around long enough.

The 360 is most likely looking at Dreamcast numbers right now. Maybe a little higher.

For the given set of exclusive IPs MS has secured for the 360, there is a hard cap on potential installed base. Roughly the same as the current xbox.

If the industry decision makers felt that MS had any chance for significant growth with the 360 there would be a major reshuffling of exclusive IP. That hasn't happened.

Actually, quite a few Nintendo fans are buying 360 becuase of Rare (PDZ will seal the deal) and Too Human. I've read this on a number of Nintendo forums

 

[quetz67]

Actually, quite a few Nintendo fans are buying 360 becuase of Rare (PDZ will seal the deal) and Too Human. I've read this on a number of Nintendo forums

yea, maybe I get an xbox to play through PDZ and maybe Kameo and then put it on ebay and get a PS3 (and Rev later)

 

[gamergirly]

Best case for MS with the 360 is retaining some decent percentage of current xbox owners.

Most likely the hard core Sega('Sony killed the Dreamcast with teh Hype'/MS(MS is always teh winner') fans will not abandon the console no matter how much worse things get - if that is even possible. The 'most powerful' segment of the xbox installed base has shown clear signs of abanoning the console in droves. And it doesn't look good for the x86 gamer segment when 360 games are looking on par at best with current x86 games.

If someone can find a current PS2 owner who plans on buying a 360 and not a PS3, well that would be quite a find. Most likely the same for the Nintendo installed base.

Marketshare/installed base growth has to come from somewhere. It isn't like bank interest where you get it just for sticking around long enough.

The 360 is most likely looking at Dreamcast numbers right now. Maybe a little higher.

For the given set of exclusive IPs MS has secured for the 360, there is a hard cap on potential installed base. Roughly the same as the current xbox.

If the industry decision makers felt that MS had any chance for significant growth with the 360 there would be a major reshuffling of exclusive IP. That hasn't happened.

That's what the Revolution is for! In all seriousness, 360 is probably going to take away some of PS2's userbase. The only real factor seperating the machines at this point are the types of games you will find abundant on one or the other. Online gaming and machine power is a given for both. That leaves Revolution to either make a space for itself by expanding the market or only being able to retain the majority of the Gamecube userbase.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

MS wants to turn a profit quickly......

And hence, the Retard Pack was born

 

[brandonh83]

I'd like a retard pack please, because I never save my progress.

 

[Baron Aloha]

40% marketshare for the 360 is a pipe dream.* Japan and Europe will see to that. 30% is probably more realistic IMO.



*Unless they snag FFXIII or DQ9.

 

[Juice]

:lol Analysts are predicting 45% marketshare for 360 and you're questioning whether there will be a follow-up? I've yet to hear of anyone in the industry who thinks MS will lose marketshare or have a less profitable system with Xbox 360.

It sure is a good thing we have those analysts, to tell us how things are going to work out. It's just useful, since they're always right.

I'm just really glad that I can rest assured that the 360 is going to beat the PS3 and the Revolution because an analyst told me that was how it's going to be.

Then again, it is true that analysts make two kinds of broadly sweeping predictions: painfully obvious and horribly uninformed. I'll leave the decision as to which umbrella "45% marketshare for 360" falls under up to you.

Analysts! Analysts! Analysts!

 

[Speevy]

I'd like a retard pack please, because I never save my progress.

Elder Scrolls Oblivion runthroughs. Hope it doesn't crash.

 

[soundwave05]

PS2- 91 million
XBox- 21 million
GameCube - 19 million

Those are the current shipments, right?

So that's about a 16% market share.

I think going from that to 40% is a bit extreme, that's more than double. 30% I think might be more possible for MS.

Nintendo is a bit of a wildcard, but you can't discount them. The success of Nintendogs and Brain Training really does indicate they may be onto somethting here and something that could definitely increase their marketshare as well. I have a feeling too that Nintendogs and Brain Training are only the tip of the iceberg, there's probably some small project at development at Nintendo right now that will be even bigger than either of those games.

 

[Speevy]

If the Revolution has trouble catching on (half of Gamecube numbers), MS could achieve a pretty high market share.

 

[soundwave05]

I can see Nintendo gaining marketshare, even if they have to rely on new consumers to push their growth.

Also I think the design of the system (size/Apple-ish style cues/even the controller purposely designed to look more like a remote control) is going to be much better recieved than the Fisher Pricey GameCube.

If they can get an original game title which does for the Revolution what Nintendogs/Brain Training have done for the DS and couple that with a traditional "crowd pleaser" type of launch game -- Mario and Smash Brothers for instance, they're going to have a shot provided they can get that one-two punch early on. But they'll need both.

 

[Juice]

I can see Nintendo gaining marketshare, even if they have to rely on new consumers to push their growth.

Also I think the design of the system (size/Apple-ish style cues/even the controller purposely designed to look more like a remote control) is going to be much better recieved than the Fisher Pricey GameCube.

If they can get an original game title which does for the Revolution what Nintendogs/Brain Training have done for the DS and couple that with a traditional "crowd pleaser" type of launch game -- Mario and Smash Brothers for instance, they're going to have a shot provided they can get that one-two punch early on. But they'll need both.

You can predict rainbows and happiness for Nintendo all you want, but you had best expect a Drinky-flavored shitstorm if you suggest it might actually do better than Microsoft or Sony.

But humoring that thought anyway:

A week ago, I would've said the likely argument would be that Nintendo would fuck up the Revolution design well enough that it would ensure Microsoft a much nicer market share, but after the unveiling and the really nice system design, the fact it's so differentiated from the others makes the 360 look redundant next to the PS3.

The PS2 achieved success because it was the target platform of every publisher before it was even launched. Now we're seeing publishers say prior to the 360's launch that they're planning on targetting the PS3 and then down-porting to the 360. If the 360 becomes the watered down ports + Halo box, there's probably a good argument out there for it losing marketshare and pulling a minor Dreamcast. Only instead of being cancelled, more money will be thrown at it until it stabilizes, which means MS wouldn't turn a profit. Again.

 

[TheInkyVoid]

I think going from that to 40% is a bit extreme, that's more than double. 30% I think might be more possible for MS.

So you are saying that there will be 20 million more people over the next five years that go out and buy a 360 who didn't have the desire to buy an xbox?

Who are these people?
Where are these people?

For the past year you could pick up an xbox for relatively cheap. What has changed in the catalogue of xbox games that didn't motivate these people before to buy an xbox but will now cause them to go out and buy a 360?

There are three areas the console market can be divided into in relation to the 360:

1) Current PS2 and/or GameCube owners
2) Current xbox owners
3) People who didn't buy any console

Where do the 20 million new people come from out of those groups? (obviously not 2) heh)

 

[soundwave05]

I think in North America, MS has a shot to gain the most users, followed by Europe, then maybe some reasonable growth in Asia (though not as much there for obvious reasons).

I would be surprised in North America if Sony completely routs MS again, here it'll be probably closer to a 50-50 or 60-40 split, in which case MS' marketshare overall would rise considerably.

 

[Speevy]

Nintendo doesn't even make enough first party games for its consoles to encourage increased market share, plus the thing seems to be (IMO) releasing last.

So

+Unique controller
+Unique games

-Not as many first party games as the competition. If we use this generation as an example, Nintendo's internal development teams just don't crank out enough games for consoles.
-Not as many third party games as the competition. I really don't think I'll get much argument here.

I would be very surprised if MS managed to actually sell less this time. I mean, looking at the Japan, US, and Europe numbers for the Xbox, where is there to go but up with no competition for a 6 months to a year?

 

[Raistlin]

If the two years calculation is based on a 40% market share ...

... then no ... no ... Microsoft will not break even in 2 years.











In Japan, I see Microsoft probably losing market share. This gen is going to cost more than last gen (HW & SW), so there will be more people that only get 1 or 2 systems then previously. Revolution and PS3 seem to be the hotnesses over there.

Europe and N. America are where it gets interesting though. Depending on how everything plays our, either 360 can make a nice dent ... or really lose its legs. Think about it, if the segmenting of the userbase causes a few problems ... and some of the initial games don't live up to the PS3 stuff ... they could really suffer. This will be especially true if PS3 makes a lot of inroads with 'western' devs. If a lot of PC games, or PC-like games, are made and ported to the PS3 (and they don't suck), things could get really ugly for Microsoft.

 

[Seth C]

I can see Nintendo gaining marketshare, even if they have to rely on new consumers to push their growth.

Also I think the design of the system (size/Apple-ish style cues/even the controller purposely designed to look more like a remote control) is going to be much better recieved than the Fisher Pricey GameCube.

If they can get an original game title which does for the Revolution what Nintendogs/Brain Training have done for the DS and couple that with a traditional "crowd pleaser" type of launch game -- Mario and Smash Brothers for instance, they're going to have a shot provided they can get that one-two punch early on. But they'll need both.

Absolutely. I think most of Nintendo's marketshare this generation will come from them expanding the market and bringing in new gamers. Revolution looks to be quirky and very atypical of the console market in general. If it has a low price to match, who knows.

 

[soundwave05]

Number of games is irrelevant IMO.

The GameCube has far more games than the N64, yet has far fewer sales.

The *types* of games are more important.

Nintendo could release 10 Mario/Donkey Kong/Kirby games for the DS, but they wouldn't have the same impact a single game like Brain Training can have.

It's more important for Nintendo to have what I would call "game breakers".

Game breakers are games which break the "perception" that people have of Nintendo. An example of that would be GoldenEye on the N64 ... that totally changed that sytem's appeal. Nintendogs and Brain Training on the DS are similar kinds of games.

The GameCube really was hurt by not having a "game breaker" title earlier on in its life span. It seems like you must get that game within the first year of launch ... RE4 really couldn't help the GCN too much in year 4.

If Nintendo can put out a "game breaker" type of title or two earlier on for the Revolution to go with their usual franchises, I would not be surprised at all if the Revolution sells more than the GameCube.

 

[Speevy]

So you are saying that there will be 20 million more people over the next five years that go out and buy a 360 who didn't have the desire to buy an xbox?

Who are these people?
Where are these people?

For the past year you could pick up an xbox for relatively cheap. What has changed in the catalogue of xbox games that didn't motivate these people before to buy an xbox but will now cause them to go out and buy a 360?

There are three areas the console market can be divided into in relation to the 360:

1) Current PS2 and/or GameCube owners
2) Current xbox owners
3) People who didn't buy any console

Where do the 20 million new people come from out of those groups? (obviously not 2) heh)

The Gamecube userbase is dead. They don't buy games, and there's strong anecdotal evidence that quite a few of them have traded in the system. So yeah, if there's any truth to the idea that the "Goldeneye-loving N64 gamers" went with the Xbox, that turkey will be carved in half once again. And of course there are PS2 owners to be had. Great new console releasing with a nice steady release list? For the third group, the people who didn't buy any console would be expected to purchas something if the market is to grow.

 

[Juice]

Nintendo doesn't even make enough first party games for its consoles to encourage increased market share, plus the thing seems to be (IMO) releasing last.

So

+Unique controller
+Unique games

-Not as many first party games as the competition. If we use this generation as an example, Nintendo's internal development teams just don't crank out enough games for consoles.
-Not as many third party games as the competition. I really don't think I'll get much argument here.

I would be very surprised if MS managed to actually sell less this time. I mean, looking at the Japan, US, and Europe numbers for the Xbox, where is there to go but up with no competition for a 6 months to a year?

A similar argument could be made for why the Dreamcast would beat the GameCube in the longrun back in 1999. And GameCube came out two years later, not one.

As important as it is to be out to market first, being to market with the right product is always far more important.

Part of the genius with the DS, and this will likely also be true of the revolution, is that development is far cheaper than on competing platforms. That means the Revolution will probably get the lion's share of indepent, innovative, and offbeat major publisher games; to an even greater extent than GameCube did (and development costs on the Cube were half of Xbox, even though their power was comparable).

 

[Seth C]

So you are saying that there will be 20 million more people over the next five years that go out and buy a 360 who didn't have the desire to buy an xbox?

Who are these people?
Where are these people?

For the past year you could pick up an xbox for relatively cheap. What has changed in the catalogue of xbox games that didn't motivate these people before to buy an xbox but will now cause them to go out and buy a 360?

There are three areas the console market can be divided into in relation to the 360:

1) Current PS2 and/or GameCube owners
2) Current xbox owners
3) People who didn't buy any console

Where do the 20 million new people come from out of those groups? (obviously not 2) heh)

Some come from the first, some from the third, and some from one you conveneniently forgot, called "early adopters." PS2 sold to those people last generation, remember? In the US, Microsoft could easily sell 3-4 million units before the PS3 even launches.

I don't know why I'm responding, as you're obviously trolling for Sony, but what the hell...try this one on for size. Using your logic, should the Sega Genesis have even competed with the Super NES in the US?

Now, Microsoft is in a MUCH better position than Sega was then. You simply cannot simplify things the way you are trying to. It doesn't work.

Personally, however, I do think 45% is a pipedream. I expect 40% in the US and 30% worldwide, at least in comparison to the PS3. These numbers could change depending on how much (if any) the Revolution can expand the market by bringing in the toy/gaming market, rather than just the videogame market.

 

[soundwave05]

For MS to make serious gains, they're going to have to take some of Sony's audience, no if, ands, or buts about it.

In North America and Europe I could see it happening to a degree, but Sony will probably still win North America by a reasonable margin (ala the SNES over the Genesis) and win Europe decisively in the long run.

I don't believe there's much more market share for Nintendo to lose. The users they have now are the absolute faithful, they will buy a new Nintendo machine no matter what.

Right now I think it'll probably boil down something like this ...

PS3 - 90-100 million
XBox 360 - 40-45 million
Revolution - 15-30 million

Nintendo is the hardest one to predict. There's a chance definitely to lose marketshare, but at the same time, the GameCube wasn't that good of a console. It didn't get a great Mario game, it won't have a great Zelda game until its just about dead, the design of the system was a stinker, lack of DVD playback hurt given the time frame the console was released at, they weren't able to get a big new franchise for the system, it didn't offer anything really different from the PS2 or XBox other than Nintendo's existing franchises, they didn't have any good traditional FPS shooters, etc.