By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - But seriously tho - Where did Xbox 360 go wrong?!

Michael-5 on 26 December 2013
Turkish said:
I agree with Michael 5 few posts above. The 360 brand changed around 2010. From 2006 to 2009 it had a pretty good and varied list of 1st and 3rd party exclusives. After Kinect was a hit the influx of that varied list of exclusives stopped. The focus was on Kinect games and MS only relied on Halo, Forza, Gears for the core audience.

I actually got a 360 before a PS3, I had to have Bioshock, Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Tales of Vesperia, Gears of War etc... I dont see that early 360 magic with the Xbone, Quantum Break, that Insomniac game, another Halo dont do it for me.

I still see that early 360 magic, but not as extreme. Ryse and Crimson Dragon didn't score well, Forza 5 lacks content, and Titnafall is coming to PC too. However Dead Rising 3 looks awesome.

d21lewis said:
Michael-5 said:

3 Reasons, all interconnected.

Kinect - created a divide between the fans. MS couldn't make games for both Kinect and non-Kinect owners, so what ended up happening is that the exclusive content was split. Half Casual, half core

1.)Sudden stop of 3rd & 1st party exclusives - This relates to Kinect because 75% of 360 owners do not own a Kinect device, yet after 2009 75% of 360's games were Kinect exclusive. Why? Core gamers interested in Call of Duty started to migrate to PS3 (as shown by increasing CoD sales on PS3 with respect to 360 over the years).

Over-reliance of core franchises - After 2009, too many Halo's and Forza's. I mean in the last 5 years we've seen 4 Forza's, but how many Gran Turismo's have there been? 2. Gears of War ended at 3, but instead of making something new, 360 owners got a piss poor prequel. etc.

2.)Price - Kinect was an excuse for MS to keep console prices high. While Sony kept cutting the price of the PS3, MS just made more expensive bundles with Kinect. So while 360 started well as the cheaper console, it's the same price as a PS3 now, which makes no sense since it has no Blu-Ray, no SSD, and less features.

-----

I'm starting to think, the only reason 360 did well in the first place was because it was cheaper. A big reason why I got a 360 instead of a PS3 in 2007 was because PS3 was $600. When PS3 matched 360 in price, PS3 sales soared, and now that PS4 has released, $100 cheaper then XBO, Sony is outselling MS in their home territories (US/UK).

Help me wrap my head around this.  

1st bolded:  You're saying that the "Shooter Box" as some have dubbed it started getting different types of titles for Kinect and, as a result, people who played Call of Duty on Xbox 360 went to the PS3 for Call of Duty despite Call of Duty still being on Xbox 360?  Even though, in the USA (where Xbox reigned supreme) the Xbox 360 continued to outsell the PS3 every year?

2nd bolded:  And you're also implying that Kinect, the device that was hailed as the fastest electronic thingy to ever sell 10 million units and actually made the Xbox 360 outsell the PS3 for the first time EVER is a bad thing?  I mean, Kinect helped Xbox 360 so much that they kinda made it the focus of their follow up console....

I mean PS3 dominated Xbox 360 virtually everywhere outside of the USA.  It was inevitable that the PS3 would outsell the Xbox 360.  With Kinect, a year's headstart, and a lower price, the Xbox 360 was able to hold on to second place for several years.  The PS3 vs 360 should have been a blood bath!  The PS3 had Blu Ray, was more powerful, had free online, etc.  Instead, Rocky Balboa went head to head with Appollo Creed and (*Spoiler*) even though he lost, he hung in there until the final round.

And maybe (3rd bolded) the perception of superior online, superior multi-plats, capable hardware, a year's head start, Kinect (which wasn't a liability), the perception of superior controller, etc. helped a little bit?  Maybe Sony made a lot of mistakes and the media getting behind Xbox 360 helped as well.  Price couldn't be the ONLY reason, could it?

1. I'm saying people who didn't own an HD system in 2010, and were interested in more casual multiplatform games like CoD and Assassin's Creed, started to look at the 360 with less interestin 2010. In 2010, the X-Box had a very different appearance, and PS3 just started to look more appealing because XB ads were all for that silly Kinect.

2. XB360 outsold the PS3 many times before Kinect. The biggest shift was in 2008, when the 360 & PS3 had a price cut, but 360 sold for $399. I recall the gap jumped in MS's favor by 5 million more units at this time to a max of 8 million.

My point is a price cut really helped the 360 in 2006 & 2008, and releasing Kinect, but without a price cut to the console was a bad move. That price cut was crutial in 2010.

3. 360 had superior multiplatform titles? Last I checked most games looked better on PS3. The only exceptions were Bathesda's work, Bayonetta, and I believe Red Dead. However Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, FIFA, all played better on PS3.

IMO price was the main reason why 360 outsold PS3 in the early years. There are other factors (like the controller, and some good exclusives like Forza 3 - 2009), but I think price was the biggest factor.

STRYKIE said:

I think he means in the sense that nobody would've gave those accolades a chance at all had it not been for the initial grosteque, unexpected price of the PS3

But man, if I ever stumble across a time machine in my lifetime, I know one of the first places I'll be headed.

Yea, I'd head back to high school, and not think twice about all the chances I had to get laid.

As for 360, yep. Had PS3 launched at a more reasonable price, I think XB360 would probably have sold something more like 50-60 million instead (It's still a good console).



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results