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

welshbloke on 10 February 2010

Well they already use the 360 controllers to control the drones so a small leap. Also as this was apparently in 2006 I am not surpised Microsoft were cool on the idea as shortages were indeed the order of the day. I am sure it would be different now.



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Around the Network
halogamer1989 on 10 February 2010

Here's the thing though. Most base MWR centers have at least 1 360 already so for sales MS isn't hurting. Plus DARPA or intel or whatever dept DoD gave that prjt to would most likely use PCs for the XNA dev anyway. It was prbly the result of an eager guy looking to make a new project worthwhile. Then they dropped it.



Cross-X on 10 February 2010

This exactly isn't good...

I mean, if the US military are willing to buy X360s, why can't MS just do it? MS is an American Company and surely they would be willing to supply the US Military who protect America some good entertainment with their own X360s.

 



heruamon on 10 February 2010

Look at all the foxnewing...lol.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

halogamer1989 on 10 February 2010

@Cross US Military =/= US Militants Militants is a term used to describe lone wolfs and the like.



Around the Network
arsenicazure on 10 February 2010

Obviously the army would want a "deal" on their purchase(s).
2006. MS was losing money on the 360. Probably didnt want to lose anymore.

Secondly,MS doesnt have much PR clout. And most people associate the army as an(necessary) evil. Doesnt really bode too well for MS to have their console tied down with real violence.

Lastly, RROD was an issue back then(unkown to us ofcourse but MS knew) so maybe they thought it best not to sell broken consoles to the army..



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Cross-X on 10 February 2010
halogamer1989 said:
@Cross US Military =/= US Militants Militants is a term used to describe lone wolfs and the like.

Ah right used the wrong term. Thanks for notifying. Shall edit now ^^

 



halogamer1989 on 10 February 2010
Cross-X said:
halogamer1989 said:
@Cross US Military =/= US Militants Militants is a term used to describe lone wolfs and the like.

Ah right used the wrong term. Thanks for notifying. Shall edit now ^^

 

Ok...



gurglesletch on 10 February 2010
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.




Get your Portable ID!

NightAntilli on 10 February 2010

"It’s hard to believe that Microsoft would risk a public relations disaster by refusing to sell products that would save the lives of American soldiers during time of war. "

War shouldn't be fking happening in the first place.



Truth does not fear investigation