I was thinking about this earlier this morning and I am wondering if the Wii hadn't been doing so well over the last year what would the buzz and the talk of the industry be right now? 

My first thought was that the head start the 360 got would probably be an interesting topic of discussion and I realized that I haven't seen much discussion on it..at all...So is it just me or does it seem like the head start strategy paid off pretty well for MS?  Consider that according to the charts the two consoles are still damn near identical in sales over the same length of time.

This isn't meant as a "what if" question but rather how effective do you think this strategy has been?   

My take is that extra time the 360 had to set up its library and get a buffer lead on the PS3 has granted it a public perception that has been vital to keeping things going for them.  The PS3 was almost certaintly the Goliath coming into this console race and by jumping out to an early lead MS was able to steal that thunder quite effectively and put Goliath on the defensive right from the word go.

More than that consider how differently the libraries would be matching up right now.  Some of the '08 titles would likely be matching up head to head against this holidays 360 titles and that would be a far less favorable comparison for the 360 than what they have going now. 

Overall when I look at it I think the 360 owes a lot of its success to its head start.  Thats not to steal any credit from it, as it is their strategy and strategy has a lot to do with console success in general.  But my point is that I think originally my opinion of the head start was that it was insignificant and meaningless...but now I think it has made a massive difference and could end up being one of the major factors, if not the deciding factor for the battle between the PS3 and 360.

Thoughts? 

Everyone talks about the head start of the 360. Especially the Sony follower's, because they know it paid off. I think most don't give them loads of credit for it because even with it the Wii still leads worldwide.

The funny thing is Sony has basically used this same strategy in every generation. Sure they weren't technically 1st but their competition wasn't in any shape to fight. So they didn't prepare for MS because they figured "Hey, we've been here before". The problem is MS is not Sega (no offense) and they showed what a head start means. Sure they could have done better but for the most part it worked.

Personally, I see the headstart of the XBox 360 as being a good idea that was poorly capitalized on ...

The whole point of the early mover advantage is to get to get to a lower price, with better software, and to have a large library of budget priced games before your competition can establish itself. Microsoft hasn't taken advantage of their start to lower prices or introduce a large library of budget priced games; by now the 360 should be (at least) $100 lower than the launch price, and games like Perfect Dark, Call of Duty 2, PGR, Kameo, and any other high quality game should have been budget priced ($20 to $30) before the PS3 and Wii launched.

I think the head start gave Microsoft a foothold but against Sony. It'll be a lot harder for Sony to convince consumers to choose the PS3 over the 360 but it hasn't been a spectacular success. Like you said, PS3 and 360 have very similar sales at launch and more likely, there will come a point where they are competing neck and neck. Microsoft's head start merely gave the 360 a chance to be a contender but it did not work for the 360 like the way the head start worked for the PS1 and 2. Simply put, MS blew their advantage and the success of the 360 will be based on its merits which is a good thing I suppose. I didn't like the way the PS2 dominated simply by being there first.

@goddbless,

I think people mention it semi-regularly, but I don't see any real discussion. Its usually just a reference that it happens in another bigger discussion.

And I agree MS is not the first to think of the idea and they probably haven't done it better than anyone else either.  But I do think the results they are getting are still worth mentioning.

@HappySqrl (<-- see how I did that?)

Well I will say I agree they could have done more with it but I think as far as the price cuts go they still have that advantage. Their console being out longer means production should have lowered. The fact that they haven't utilized this advantage and cut price still means they have the option to do so and stay profitable (presumeably).

Just curious but how effective do you think it has been Happy? The reason I ask is because you say you think it could have been more effective but that doesn't preclude you from thinking it has been effective so far...even if not to the highest degree possible.

I have said this in the past: I think 360's head start was vital. I even go as far as saying that it's worth it even at the expense of the RROD problem (which probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't rushed the console).

If the 360 had launched at the same time as the PS3, developers would be learning both architectures at the same time, and many customers would buy the PS3 for brand name. The 360 would still have a chance, but it would be a very hard fight for Microsoft!

There were 3 sacrifices to be made in exchange for the headstart. Price, Game Selection, and RROD.

1. Price- Lauching at a price point higher than any sucessful console ever was very risky. But the advanced parts warrented that and the very long wait for the price drop. The discount core sku was also able to mask the true cost of owning a 360.

2. Game Selection- Weak launch and year 1 titles plauge all systems but I find it hard for anyone to boast what was going on with the 360 until Gears. But they were able to put out Gears and ride it into a wonderful game selection for 2007.

3. RROD- The stench of unreliability threatened to derail the 360's chances. Stepped up warranty practice and new hardware appear to have eased the public outcry.

So it seems they made it but it was quite a gamble. Fortunately for them the PS3 was priced so high the 360 could be called a bargain. And thankfully they pushed enough units to make the 360 the base for cross-platform development. This has hid and superiority the PS3 harware may have. But the most crucial thing for them was the RROD maelstrom did not hit before Gears of War. Had that happened I don't think Halo 3 could have saved them.

But all those sacrifces have paid off. The price is very competitve with best in class software and a fairly bright future. The only question now is how to shake the "Hardcore only need apply" image that they tried so hard to achieve.

And yes I expect we will see the next XBox leading the Next-Generation of consoles. BUt maybe with a little more stress testing.

By having the year head start the XBox 360 built a decent userbase which buys a decent quantity of games, and they have established the XBox 360 as the primary HD console outside of Japan. If the XBox 360, PS3 and Wii all launched at the same time and sold as they did in their first year I expect things would be much worse for the XBox 360 (and PS3); without the established userbase many third party developers would be even more reluctant to produce a game for either the PS3 or XBox 360 when the Wii's userbase was so much larger and growing so much faster. Most western developers know that they can produce a game for the XBox 360 and PC and sell enough copies to turn a profit, which is enough to keep games flowing towards the system.

When I say they didn't do enough, I'm mostly thinking that had their plan been more focused they could have sold 8 Million (or more) additional consoles by now.

Business-wise Xbox 360's head-start definitely turned out to be the right move. I agree with some others who said that MS didn't capitalize on it as much as it could have - the pricing is still kind of high, but that's the luxury Sony afforded Microsoft by pricing the PS3 so high.

If we were to draw comparisons to Sega's early launches, there is one problem Saturn had which now affects 360 to a smaller degree: not seeing the future. Just as Saturn was not being designed for 3D and had to have it shoehorned in, 360 has not been designed for the casual market and now MS is trying to catch up with Nintendo.

Edit: But MS couldn't afford to gamble on a Wii-like system when the Sony set-top box was perceived as a big threat to the Windows market. Since beating PS3 was the top priority, the head-start on a "traditional" system was the right move. It has put 360 in what I think is an insurmountable lead versus the PS3, and it's in a strong enough position that it's still a very attractive platform to publish games on. As HappySquirrel said, it would be hard to justify developing for PS3 and 360 if all three had launched at the same time, since Wii would likely have over half of the market!

microsoft did make a good desicion,when people wanted to get ps3 at march but then got delayed,some of them got a 360,and the year head start library has helped it alot with the hardcore gamers,and now all they need is the casuals,but i think wii will win that,but this head start has helped it alot