Quantcast
US Army wanted Xbox 360, MS Refused

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

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?



Around the Network
gurglesletch said:
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.

Uh, except the Airforce didn't buy them in 06.

They bought them in 08.

Early 08... when they had craploads to spare.



papflesje said:
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?

Because the Xbox is known for imaginary violence and not real peoples lives ending violence?

I mean, if you wonder why in 2006 Microsoft didn't want to be assosiated with the Army and the Iraq War... ask a bunch of out of work republicans why that was probably a good Idea.



Kasz216 said:
gurglesletch said:
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.

Uh, except the Airforce didn't buy them in 06.

They bought them in 08.

Early 08... when they had craploads to spare.

Strange since when i bought mine in 08 there was about 400,000 consoles sold that week.



gurglesletch said:
Kasz216 said:
gurglesletch said:
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.

Uh, except the Airforce didn't buy them in 06.

They bought them in 08.

Early 08... when they had craploads to spare.

Strange since when i bought mine in 08 there was about 400,000 consoles sold that week.

In the week the story was reported... the PS3 sold 110,000.  Which was last place... by quite a bit



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
papflesje said:
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?

Because the Xbox is known for imaginary violence and not real peoples lives ending violence?

I mean, if you wonder why in 2006 Microsoft didn't want to be assosiated with the Army and the Iraq War... ask a bunch of out of work republicans why that was probably a good Idea.

No offense, but plenty of people don't make that distinction. Going "AAARGH, DIE DIE DIE" with blood splattering all over your screen is basically the same thing for a huge number of people and parents. (not saying they're right to think like that, but that's how it is).