Well the fallout came more from PS fans who pretended they were day 1 adopters and got mad on X1 buyers behalf :P. Most X1 people I came across online didn't seem to really mind.

75% of the problem is Price.

The other 25% is straight confusion as to what the console can do besides games. M$ has done a shit ton of advertising of the other features of the XB1, but most people just assume the PS4 can do them too.

So, why would someone buy an XB1 for $100 more and not get anything feature wise for it? That's the dilemma for Joe average. Early adopters are for the most part only interested in the gaming aspects. So, the PS4 is getting an early lead from that point. The real problem for M$ is that it is also creating a buzz that the PS4 is outselling the XB1 so much that it is becoming the must have for that reason alone.

Seems obvious, that M$ is aware that they need to work on price to eliminate as much of the price disparity as possible. The whole indie games thing is already becoming a non issue in the near future and if M$ can add some of these cheap indie titles into the Gold package, most of that will be mute also. Only time will really tell, and it will be a year before we have enough real data to know what will happen.

95% being attributed solely to price was a percentage pulled out of a hat.

I haven't watched the video yet; I'll do so after this post, so I'm not influenced by it.

The reason why is the XB1 had everything going against it heading into launch, leaving little reason other than brand loyalty and the potential for early shortages of supply to drive sales.

Highest price, worst PR and slightly lower specs with resultant performance issues.

It is never advantageous to start a generation with the highest MSRP; no one will disagree with this, but a high MSRP, not necessarily even the highest, will in effect price a product out of the range of general consumers. This is not necessarily what they can afford though, as those who really want a product will find a way to pay for it, or go into debt to obtain one regardless of price.

So what we're really talking about is perceived value at a given price with the perceived scarcity of an item as well as the willingness to wait for a discount based upon realistic expectations.

What does that mean? We have a $500 product competing with a $400 product that runs most of the same games, is widely available (no panic or impulse buys), with resulting rumors of cheaper bundles or a price correction and no immediate reason to pay full price. The Titanfall bundle is the effective first discount at $60 MSRP (obviously not the same as dropping $60 off the price of the console) for those who planned on buying the game at the same time they bought the console on which to play it. Others will wait for a bundle that includes the game they're waiting for or a price reduction. The market for $500 game consoles is simply smaller than at other price points. It should be added that the incentive to buy a new console to play a specific game is severely blunted by being available on its cheaper sibling that many already have, or a gaming PC.

well, that's possible of course, but I mean 3ds had a lot of fallout too. Pushing Nintendo to introduce the ambassador program.

When people buy a console right out of the gate, they're kind of under the impression that the price will remain inflexible for quite some time...otherwise there is likely a portion who would have waited. For example with the ps3, we saw that most people simply waited until ps3 got its price cut 2008 with the slim. Price drops show massive sales in the first couple weeks because those are people that had been waiting.

So when you get that system day 1, it's usually because you don't want to wait however long you assume the price will be the same...if that time period is much shorter than you had imagined it, it creates disappointment because had you known the length of time, you might have considered waiting.

...In theory

The reality might be different, of course.

Only a short few months after the Wii U's launch and it was only $50 more than the Wii's launch price. Hell, when you adjust for inflation, the Wii was only $15 cheaper at launch than the Wii U currently is. It also continued to get more of the "Wii' style games. And yet neither the Wii U nor these games took off. Why? Do you honestly think $50 (actually even less) makes the difference between Wii-like sales and Wii U-like sales?

Bolded: And what does that have to do with anything? The PS2 was far more popular in 2006 than the PS3 was in 2012 and could be purchased at a lower price, so I'm failing to see your point.

Bolded 2: Is that why the first pricedrop did next to nothing? The Wii U's potential for sales has never been like the Wii's and it never will be. It doesn't have the same appeal to casuals, regardless of the price. You can pretend that less than a $100 difference makes the difference between record breaking sales and terrible sales, but there's just no basis for it.

Thanks, 

Its clear from the list that MS has supported the 360 alot better than it did the OG Xbox...but wait a minute something seems fishy.

Out of this list which of those games aren't on XB1:

Fable Anniversary, World of Tanks, Titanfall, Fantasia: Music Evolved, Project Spark, Warface, Trials Fusion (not on PS3), Tropico 5 (not on PS3). Also timed exclusivity of PVZ Z: Garden Warfare and Peggle 2.

Ah well there still a lot... but what about not on PC:

Fable Anniversary, World of Tanks, Titanfall, Fantasia: Music Evolved, Project Spark, Warface, Trials Fusion (not on PS3), Tropico 5 (not on PS3). Also timed exclusivity of PVZ Z: Garden Warfare and Peggle 2.

Well...Its more than the PS3...oh wait...

PS3 has a whole bunch of jrpg exclusives that PS4 isn't getting yet...man

I guess its an improvement form what they did with the Xbox OG.

MS sure is learning!

To my understanding, the reward of early adopting is the time you have while someone else doesn't experience what you have. When a future deal presents itself and said consumer takes advantage, the early adopter still has the edge of spending months with that experience where as the others didn't.

Time is money and 5 months with a Xbox One (or any console) is arguably worth as much or more then the price of a day 1 game. That's just my take anyway, I liked your concise response as well.

If the XB1 was $100 cheaper, then its fair to assume that the XB1 would be of pooer quality it terms of specs. I doubth that MS could have made the XB1 $100 cheaper and end up matching PS4 specs at that price. So we cant just change the price and not take into consideration that the specs would be much lower.  Also if MS could launch at $400 then Sony could launch at $300, thats how this argument is going to work.

Nothing would change if the XB1 was $100 cheaper, it would still outsold by a more superior console, that would aslo be $100 cheaper. 

Fail argument.

I haven't watched the video as of yet, but my reasons would be:

Cheaper
More powerful
Better third party titles
More promising future in terms of exclusives from first party studios (Personal preference)
Better controller (Personal preference)
Better Indie support

That's all that I can think of off the top of my head.

I have to laugh at the people saying "but if the ONE was $100 cheaper, it would be winning".

If it was $100 cheaper than the PS4, it would either be as powerful as the WiiU or Microsoft would be losing to much money to stay in the game.