Reasonable said:
Unless MS are marketing wizards (which they might be) then yes the MW3 deals would have cost them money. Activision has no need to favour MS and would certainly have made them pay for the advertising favouritism while retailers/Activision would almost certainly have got MS to vendor fund bundles. I suspect a fair number of the MW3 bundles went to existing 360 owners. Not all but a decent amount. This is normal for special editions which target existing fans. Given Sony do this well in Japan I'm always amazed then seem somewhat flumoxed in West about doing the same thing. But kudos to MS for good targeting of special edition bundles in West. I think both spend all year round but I do feel there is a situation where Sony spends a bit more all year round and MS focuses more on certain time periods. Given MS main install base is countries with big seasonal spikes in demand this makes sense whereas Sony at the moment has a more spread install base for PS3 geographically and tends to lean towards more regular advertising to maintain brand visibility. Overall I think MS advertises better than Sony in the West,particularly in the US, although both do a good job overall I guess. |
I agree , In MS favour they rightly or wrongly have been seen since Halo as the shooter box , and that along with the fact that cod's sell better on there platform made it the perfect match for them also b'ops gained some ground on the PS3 so the MW3 bundling and importantly the advertising that made it look like a 360 first title was the right counter for that, Sony on the other hand seem to weigh up cost and effect more than MS this gen, where as MS coming from the Xbox can continue to spend to build the brand and to tell you the truth both strategys seemed to have worked , horses for courses I guess , MS in gaining ground and Sony in overcoming the burdens placed on the PS3 in relation to carrying bluray and cell for the entire company.
Research shows Video games help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot







