Final-Fan on 25 April 2008
| The OP: Hi Everyone, I am from Gamespot and new here. For the life of me I can’t seem to understand why gamers convey the Xbox 360 is being “dead”. It just proves how little most gamers understand about the business behind gaming. Console sales define absolutely nothing when it comes to making money; it simply provides leverage for a console manufacturer. To illustrate take the following example. Widget A sells 100,000 units for $.50 and costs $1 to produce. Widget B sells 10,000 units for $.50 and costs $.10 to produce. Who makes more money here? Widget A: 50,000 - 100,000 = -50,000Widget B: 5000-1000=+4000 Microsoft learned its lesson through the Xbox selling a console for less then what it costs to manufacturer is a poor business model. Instead has decided to make money on every box that is sold. http://www.oxmpodcast.com/ (please listen to the latest podcast with Michael Patcher). Last gen and this gen Sony is simply trying to sell a format to attain licensing revenue through its product. The big difference is that Blu-Ray is nowhere near the position that DVD was in when PS2 launched. 85% of the Blu Ray players out are PS3’s.http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10145&Itemid=2 To quote the above link, “In 2008 about 85 percent of the Blu-ray players in the market will be found in PS3s; the dedicated consumer electronics and PC-based types of Blu-ray players won’t catch up in terms of market share until about 2013," So 6 years and Blu Ray will catch up to consumers? In 6 years time will Blu Ray even be needed? Now I am not taking a page out of Microsoft’s book here but I am pretty certain that in 6 years there won’t be a need for a disc. Hopefully this point will stop rabid fanboy’s from posting Blu-Ray will destroy the 360. Probably not, time will tell but to me there are already digital boxes out there that let you order HD movies...seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? Secondly the 360 already has the “core gaming” market so don’t you think developers would target that market? http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10041&Itemid=2 If you look at the budget to make a game: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/29/cost-of-next-gen-game-production-is-a-burden-on-developers/ Look at the larger install base: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for: http://www.film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/KurtBuschppt.pdf Look at which console has the higher attach rate: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/747/747181p1.html http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/01/28/360-attach-rate-now-7-games-per-console/ Do you not think that developers would select 360 as their top choice for exclusive games? I am sorry but to me it’s pretty black and white. I suspect someone will come on here saying something like Microsoft is evil and such. The bottom line is regardless of sales, at the end of the day the 360 will always be one step ahead of the PS3. For those of you who still aren’t convinced, the 360 also has the reactive benefit of dropping its price against its competition. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Cheaper-by-the-Year-8886.shtml. So I will leave it at that and try reply to anything that I see as factual. If you take it for what it is, it’s not easy to dispute. I have both consoles but facts don’t lie, going forward it’s obvious to me which platform has the edge here and is clearly not dead. |
Gamer1211 said:
4. “You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360." What was the point of all that? “ “I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.” Let me clear up what I was saying for you because it is quite clear you are having a tough time. What I was saying in relation to my widget example was rather simple. The XBOX 360 was produced with the business model in mind to make money on the sale of the console and NOT the sale of software. The PS3 was produced with the business model of introducing a new format to the market and not on making profit on the sale of the hardware. The point I made about the XBOX was to simply show how there last gen model did not provide business means to continue with the same strategy that is all. To quote my original response, “The widget example was to illustrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit.” Hopefully this is clear enough for you now. If not I have again included links to further backup my point. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=322340 To Quote: "The Blu-ray was such a critical part of their business model, they couldn't let it go.” “Today, Sony's strategy to marry the Blu-ray with its next-generation video console” Clear enough? I hope so! 5. Ok so now on to what appeared to be your endless rant of my “propaganda” and how it was purely posted to influence the readers of this site. Well plain and simple, my post was to simply state that the Xbox 360 is not dead. Prior to reading, I encourage you to see how widespread this thought is for many PS3 gamers including some who have responded to this thread. I will answer each of your points individually as to make this as straight forward as possible. Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"? No. The purpose of this post was to refute the claims across the internet that the 360 is not DEAD and provide evidence accordingly. I was not trying to show that the 360 is the “best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market" as you claimed in your response. I can understand to some extent that you could have taken that out of what I posted, but this is clearly not the case. It is my opinion that the 360 is the best system going forward for core gaming, but this is my opinion, and was not the basis of this thread or the references that I provided. Clearly based on the title and subject of this thread, one could have easily asserted my aim but again, I am assuming. Not the best system, but not dead is the point here. Consumers have opinions, thoughts, likes and dislikes and who am I to try to sway them another way? Do I really give a shit if someone likes the PS3 over the 360? No, not in the slightest, this was merely a thread to discredit gamers who were being illogical in their reasoning, nothing more. Why is MS Dead, I don’t get it...that gives you the impression that I am claiming that it is the best system going forward for the core gaming market? In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox. Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc. Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy. What was the point of this thread? Was it to do a full on console comparison? Was I trying to compare pros and cons of both the PS3 and XBOX 360? If this was a comparison then sir you are right, I would be clearly one sided and be “uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy” as you put it, but this is not what the aim of this thread was. The aim of this thread sir was to simply refute the theory that the XBOX 360 is dead and why it is in a good position moving forward. Take for example the following website claiming this: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17494/1092/ So you tell me sir, how does “propaganda” work? What is needed to appropriately deem that a phrase, message or article is in fact stemming from a theory or form of propaganda? Do you actually even understand the foundation of the word propaganda and what it implies? The foundation if this thread is what is called, “rebuttal” sir and does not contain all 4 of the characteristics of propaganda defined by Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model, which you are welcome to look up in Google. Understand this, this is a RESPONSE and not some form of message that I am trying to convey to persuade or convince the gaming public. Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?! SERIOUSLY. Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything? First and foremost I WAS NOT TRYING TO COMPARE ANYTHING! The whole basis of your response hinders on this “comparison” theory that you have. Was it that hard to see that I was merely refuting a widespread argument amongst PS3 owners? I mean you say the word “comparison” or “compare” about 5 times throughout your response, if you want a full on comparison go to IGN or CNET and you will find a good one. If you feel that my sources were biased or faulty then so be it, but do not claim that I was trying to do something that I was so clearly not. As far as I am concerned gamers can choose to disagree or agree with what I am stating, it is my opinion backed up by sources of information. Your right, I may have spent 10 minutes writing up my original thread and may have not looked that deeply into several details. But in all honesty, what is the point? In the end you or any other console favoured fan doesn’t take criticism or a negative connotation to your console that well. Your too quick to jump and say one thread, person, or comment is attacking your beloved box instead of trying to obtain and understand the intrinsic meaning of a message. Well I will try to dumb things down next time I guess. |
2. I never claimed nor meant to claim that there are NO brainless fanboys on these forums nor NO idiotic anti-360 sentiments in the forum's posts. But you are PROJECTING what the gamespot morons think onto our morons, and a lot of that is not true. They don't believe a lot of the stuff you think they do, or if they do they know better than to try to sell it here. OK?
4. Then I was RIGHT before? Why did your last counterpoint talk about the "original XBOX" and NOT the 360 vs. the PS3 in that case? Anyway, although I'd truly like to know the answer to that it's in the past, so whatever. It's ridiculous to claim that the 360 is meant to profit on hardware and the PS3 is not. Both companies started out losing huge amounts on hardware initially (true, Sony's loss was bigger, but that's a difference of degree not kind), and have subsequently given tremendous efforts to becoming profitable while continuing to prioritize sales above hardware profitability. Just because the 360 has now achieved its goal and the PS3 has not yet done so does not mean that these two companies have pursued fundamentally different strategies here; they have not. Sony just had a two-for-one deal in the PS3 and Blu-ray. The PS3 will be sold at a profit and if in the end the HW for PS3 this gen is in the red overall that was NOT the plan. You may believe differently but you have not given substantial support to your case yet.
Apparently you think I'm stupid or something because I feel pretty condescended to in your remarks on this one; but actually I correctly interpreted your example as talking about the 360 vs. PS3 and immediately criticized it as both hopelessly oversimplified and factually incorrect; it was only when YOU did not address this at all but instead rambled on about the original Xbox in your counterpoint that I became confused. (Original response: "[...] How was it a useful analogy for the 360 vs. PS3? Just because the 360 managed to claw its way to profit a little bit faster doesn't mean it didn't employ the same strategy of losing money on the hardware to make it up on software and later in the gen[*note*]. [...] As it stands your widget example is such a gross oversimplification of the strategy MS and Sony both employed that it loses all relevance to the discussion.")
[*note: By this I meant that both companies intended to also make money on HW later in the gen. I thought that would be clear but I'm sorry if it was not.]
5. OK, I may have gotten a bit carried away with calling you out on not describing these aspects of 360 vs. PS3. It's true that you did not set out to do a complete comparison. However, the explicit purpose of your OP was to persuade people that the 360 is not dead AND to persuade them that the 360 is in fact in a better position than the PS3. Seeing you flatly deny that is a little comical. What is the point of a rebuttal if not to convince that some other assertion was incorrect?
If you look at the budget to make a game [...] Look at the larger install base [...] Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for [...] Look at which console has the higher attach rate [...] Do you not think that developers would select 360 as their top choice for exclusive games? I am sorry but to me it’s pretty black and white. I suspect someone will come on here saying something like Microsoft is evil and such. The bottom line is regardless of sales, at the end of the day the 360 will always be one step ahead of the PS3.
For those of you who still aren’t convinced, the 360 also has the reactive benefit of dropping its price against its competition. [...] So I will leave it at that and try reply to anything that I see as factual. If you take it for what it is, it’s not easy to dispute. I have both consoles but facts don’t lie, going forward it’s obvious to me which platform has the edge here and is clearly not dead.
This, the second half of your OP, is clearly arguing not merely that the 360 isn't DEAD, but that it "has the edge" and "will always be one step ahead of the PS3".
Again, it's true that you didn't set out to do a full comparison, so I was wrong to call you out on not having 360 cons when all you (supposedly) wanted was to show areas where the 360 wasn't as BAD as people were claiming, but clearly you exceeded the scope of that project.
As for the fact that your post doesn't exhibit all FIVE characterstics (sez Wikipedia) of that propaganda model, quite frankly I found it hilarious that you were claiming that nothing was propaganda unless it matched a model (apparently, from the brief Internet research session you prescribed) meant to analyze the ability of governments (or other powerful groups) to influence or control the populace through influencing or controlling the media. (And BTW I see nothing in there that says propaganda has to be providing factually false information; just misleading.)
Look up the definition of "propaganda" in your W3NID; since you went far beyond rebuttal of false anti-360 arguments into saying that the 360 was obviously superior to the PS3 if people would just listen to the facts which you so kindly enumerated -- and since your facts were supported by sompletely bogus sourcing -- I think it's fair to call your OP a blatantly partisan effort to portray the 360 as a superior alternative to the PS3: therefore "propaganda" as well as "comparison". "Larger install base" Larger than what? The PS3. You're comparing the two systems. "Cheaper to develop" Comparison "Higher attach rate" Comparison All you DO in the final part of your OP is compare the 360 to the PS3, and now the more I think about it the funnier it gets that you completely deny doing it. Even if the goal wasn't to compare the two systems, you clearly engaged in comparison in pursuit of your actual goal and therefore a critique of your post may well criticize those comparisons. Which mine did.
Oh, and now you say that it's not important that none of your sources were actually sources for anything? Why did you even give us the links? If not to back up your points, it must have been to give the ILLUSION of having backed up your points. Or perhaps you did it for no reason at all. So you're either (A) wrong (B) lying [edit: well, deceiving] or (C) crazy. The last section of your OP was a recitation of supposed facts and if you can't back any of it up then it's all worthless as either proof or disproof of anything at all besides your own opinion. (BTW some of those items ARE factually correct -- and some not; but you failed to provide ANY real evidence.)
Please DON'T "dumb things down" any more than you already have. These aren't the gamestop forums you're so familiar with, after all. I don't want to chase you away from VG Chartz but I WILL call bullshit when I see it.
P.S. For the record, I'm not even that much of a PS3 fan. I do like the PS3, but I think I've actually played the 360 more, even after I had them both. I do rag on it for having totally unacceptable hardware faults but that doesn't enter into this.
Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: 
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia. Thanks WordsofWisdom!
