By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - US Army wanted Xbox 360, MS Refused

gurglesletch on 10 February 2010
stof said:
gurglesletch said:
stof said:
gurglesletch said:
stof said:
If the console itself was being sold at a loss at the time then it makes a lot of sense, since they were almost certain to not recoup costs through game sales.

If the console was being sold at a profit, then it's not very smart business.

So the PS3 was sold at a profit then to the air force?


I didn't say anything about Sony. I'm just saying that if your business model is to sell your console for a loss, in the knowledge that you'll A) recoup costs in software sales and B) push a larger userbase and an increase in software support to keep console sales high when you can sell them at a profit, then selling a bunch of consoles at a loss that you know will never recieve more than one or two units of software might not be the best move.

 

Especially since the article mentions timing. They said it was early when the costs were high and they were worried about shortages. So this is probably during the first year or so, when Microsoft's strategy was to get the most out of their headstart on the Playstation. The army deal might have made them some money, but in the long term those would be consoles that gamers couldn't buy, couldn't buy games for, and couldn't choose to buy before there was a second console out with a much higher brand recognition.

It really does seem to make sense from a business perspective (though having made the army sale would have been an ok business decision too)

Obviously your point is flawed because Sony hasn't made a profit off of the PS3 hardware in NA ever but they still sold to the air force for a loss.

If I hadn't said any of the bolded parts, I'd agree with you.

Halfway into the year they had only sold 2.6 million xboxs. They could have easily ramped up production for the army while reducing costs due to increased production.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Pho_Hybrid on 10 February 2010

lol I swear they just bought PS3s instead :P back in Sept like 2k of them



halogamer1989 on 10 February 2010
V-r0cK said:

Maybe MS saw this video and felt the US Army wasnt mature enough? I wouldnt want to sell the Army anything if it was like this.

 

Those are not US soldiers.  They are marines.  Only bored devil dogs can do such awesomeness.



stof on 10 February 2010
gurglesletch said:

Obviously your point is flawed because Sony hasn't made a profit off of the PS3 hardware in NA ever but they still sold to the air force for a loss.

If I hadn't said any of the bolded parts, I'd agree with you.

Halfway into the year they had only sold 2.6 million xboxs. They could have easily ramped up production for the army while reducing costs due to increased production.

So you're saying the smarter business decision would have been to spend even more money on producing loss selling consoles to sell to a client that would never give you software returns?  I think we can all agree that Microsoft's strategy was to use their one year head start to establish a themselves a large userbase to combat the PS3 with. How exactly would selling a large portion of their consoles to the military instead of gamers have done that?

And by that point hadn't they just managed to reach demand? I remember there being a shortage issue during the first year. 



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.

AdventWolf on 10 February 2010

Lol at first I thought it was a joke, I guess it makes some sense but I never thought anything negative about it when the military bought the PS3s.



Around the Network
kunaixhaku on 10 February 2010

ps3 vs xbox 360 r going into the battlefield confirmed so this what EA has been up to secretly ahaa!



gurglesletch on 11 February 2010
stof said:
gurglesletch said:

Obviously your point is flawed because Sony hasn't made a profit off of the PS3 hardware in NA ever but they still sold to the air force for a loss.

If I hadn't said any of the bolded parts, I'd agree with you.

Halfway into the year they had only sold 2.6 million xboxs. They could have easily ramped up production for the army while reducing costs due to increased production.

So you're saying the smarter business decision would have been to spend even more money on producing loss selling consoles to sell to a client that would never give you software returns?  I think we can all agree that Microsoft's strategy was to use their one year head start to establish a themselves a large userbase to combat the PS3 with. How exactly would selling a large portion of their consoles to the military instead of gamers have done that?

And by that point hadn't they just managed to reach demand? I remember there being a shortage issue during the first year. 

Worked for Sony.




Get your Portable ID!

Kasz216 on 11 February 2010
gurglesletch said:
stof said:
gurglesletch said:

Obviously your point is flawed because Sony hasn't made a profit off of the PS3 hardware in NA ever but they still sold to the air force for a loss.

If I hadn't said any of the bolded parts, I'd agree with you.

Halfway into the year they had only sold 2.6 million xboxs. They could have easily ramped up production for the army while reducing costs due to increased production.

So you're saying the smarter business decision would have been to spend even more money on producing loss selling consoles to sell to a client that would never give you software returns?  I think we can all agree that Microsoft's strategy was to use their one year head start to establish a themselves a large userbase to combat the PS3 with. How exactly would selling a large portion of their consoles to the military instead of gamers have done that?

And by that point hadn't they just managed to reach demand? I remember there being a shortage issue during the first year. 

Worked for Sony.


Sony had consoles to give away... nobody wanted the damn things back then.

gurglesletch on 12 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
gurglesletch said:
stof said:
gurglesletch said:

Obviously your point is flawed because Sony hasn't made a profit off of the PS3 hardware in NA ever but they still sold to the air force for a loss.

If I hadn't said any of the bolded parts, I'd agree with you.

Halfway into the year they had only sold 2.6 million xboxs. They could have easily ramped up production for the army while reducing costs due to increased production.

So you're saying the smarter business decision would have been to spend even more money on producing loss selling consoles to sell to a client that would never give you software returns?  I think we can all agree that Microsoft's strategy was to use their one year head start to establish a themselves a large userbase to combat the PS3 with. How exactly would selling a large portion of their consoles to the military instead of gamers have done that?

And by that point hadn't they just managed to reach demand? I remember there being a shortage issue during the first year. 

Worked for Sony.

Sony had consoles to give away... nobody wanted the damn things back then.

So in 06 Sony could just give them away? I remember some serious supply issues since they had to delay Europe's launch and didn't have enough in NA to sell.




Get your Portable ID!

papflesje on 12 February 2010
Seece said:
good move by Microsoft, all valid points.

I can understand not wanting to do so out of principle, but not wanting to associate your console with the army because of its guns going pew pew pew?  That's exactly what the Xbox is already known for (gears, left4dead, halo, every shooter doing incredibly well on the platform), so why use that as a so-called reason not to?