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

Majin-Tenshinhan on 10 February 2010

... Strange reason? Really? I think it sounds completely sensible...



Around the Network
lvader on 10 February 2010

This story sounds bogus to me, firstly MS doesn't sell consoles directly to endusers, secondly if the US army wanted to place a very large order with one of the main retailers/distributors I can't see how MS could stop them even if they wanted to do so.



V-r0cK on 10 February 2010

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.

 



Solid_Snake4RD on 10 February 2010
iLLmaticV3 said:
That's a very strange reason not to sell your product to the military. That could have been a great money making opportunity, I don't think it would have tainted the Xbox image. I mean doesn't the Navy or something like that use PS3's?

i all those reasons are bullshit.

 

altought it could be bad for the image.

 

it could also be that mS might me losing money on the arcade sku and like they make money from the software a normal user purchases with it which might not be the case in this scenario.



CrunkE4 on 10 February 2010

All valid points for microsoft



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 10 February 2010
NiKKoM said:
So the US tax payers almost paid for videogames for the guys in the army.. hmmmm... I wouldn't be too happy with that if I paid taxes in the US...

Why?  Entertainment is a big part of keeping your soldiers happy.  It's not like it's prison.



Kasz216 on 10 February 2010
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?

Sony probably just wanted to bump up their numbers.

 



stof on 10 February 2010
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.



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.

SaviorX on 10 February 2010

This is the dumbest thing I have heard all day.

The Xbox brand has been known as the shooter box for almost 10 years now. Without giving consoles to the army, they are STILL known as that. For Pete's sake, its highest selling titles are all WAR SIMULATORS!



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

thismeintiel on 10 February 2010
SaviorX said:
This is the dumbest thing I have heard all day.

The Xbox brand has been known as the shooter box for almost 10 years now. Without giving consoles to the army, they are STILL known as that. For Pete's sake, its highest selling titles are all WAR SIMULATORS!

LOL, well I wouldn't call those games war simulators.  I mean how many real soldiers can take 20 bullets, then stand back for a little to heal, then jump right back into the fray.  None that I know.  But, you are right, they all are shooters. 

Your war simulator comment does make me think, though.  Wouldn't it be cool to have an actual game that simulates war.  Like all the enemies react realistically to where they have been hit, i.e. limping, unable to use their arms, or crouched in pain if you shoot their stomach.  And your character can only take a few hits, while reacting realistically to those shots and cannot heal whatsoever unless looked after by a medic.  And then after you do recover, if you can still do battle, the battlefield is completley changed depending on how long you were gone.  Even if all of that wasn't done, I wish companies would make enemies react more to your gunshots like previously explained.  I shouldn't have to hit someone twice with a shotgun, or shoot them more than once just cause I hit their neck and not their head.