No they did not. PS3 launched in November of 2006. They sold 394,937 consoles in November. They sold 857,103 consoles in December. The Xbox 360 (which was already ahead by a few million units before November of 2006) sold 849,098 consoles in November. They sold 2,046,655 consoles in December. The 360 had been selling for a year. When the PS3 launched people still didn't want it like they wanted the Xbox 360. Be that price, games, etc the PS3 was nowhere near the 360 in terms of sales for the beginning, even if we don't look at the year of sales the 360 did before the PS3 even came out. The PS3 was not a failure, but it had the same thing happen to it that the Xbox One did... lower starting sales. That doesn't mean failure.

This is a ridiculous question for the very example you gave. The console is selling well. Not as well as PS3, but that doesn't make it a failure. As you said in your example, the PS3 didn't sell as well as the 360 when it came out. That didn't make it a failure. This thread is for children who haven't learned what it takes for a business or product to succeed or fail.

Moderated - Leadified

I agree with you in that if your bar for success is to win it, then they are failing.

Xbox was essentially second plast last gen (Wii was first).  Phil wouldn't be much of a leader if he came out and said "let's try to maintain our 2nd place status".  Of course he is going to say they are there to win it.  They are pushing toward that.  And so far I think they are doing a better job than last gen.  To me, that is a small success, and not at all a failure.

People need to realize the Xbox Pne didn't have a 150 price drop the normal way. They removed a product from the box which allowed them to got to 400. So really all they have done is drop it 50 bucks.

Opinons of small success are really irrelevent.

By most metrics they are a failure.  You and others can argue opinions and spin things to a posative aka well they are doing better then before so success. But facts speak for thems selves.  

And i doubt any one other then known MS fans here thinks Xbox1 is profitable right now, MS predicted to be market leader their revenue/profit numbers were extraplited based on a winning scenerio.  Since the start they been eating loses and blowing loads of cash to stay alive and be relevent.  No way is abox profitable given decupling price cuts constant free games giveaways, and by most other metrics they to a failure.  

Your analogy only works if those other 29 teams lost money.  Sure, every sports franchise wants to win the championship.  But, why would they exist if they had only a 1 in 30 chance of being succesful?  THe reality is, there is always more than one winner in business.  Like many people like to mention, Apple is killing it in smartphones.  Yet, there are a half dozen companies that are having varying degrees of profit from being in the smartphone business.

So, even though Sony is killing it worldwide this generation, that doesn't mean that M$ can't be succesful too.  Obviously they have to make their money on the back end of this console cycle now though....

Considering the factor of competition, I think the xbox one is doing perfectly fine. I think 7th gen levels of sales are not going to be as easily achievable this gen.

Yes, software numbers are great but thats because VGchartz are getting into the habbit of including bundles, something they did not do in early 7th gen.

Not at all (: MS managed to reduce the damage they did back at E3 with their arrogance. It is by no means a failure and the start also was not bad at all. Just because it wasn't as good as the PS4's start doesn't automatically mean the console failed.

X1 sold just ok in it's first year but to get where they are the had to make desparate moves.

Now this is fine but it should of sold double with what it's had. Staple exclusives, exclusive to big games (Titanfall & Dead Rising the biggest), price cuts, prices cuts on top of prices cuts.

Look at it as each games as an ace card, a price cut as 10 aces and you only get to use a certain amount because each ace costs money and a company is only prepared to spend/lose a certain amount of money on a division (even if you're MS). The X1 as used up alot of aces to just stay in contention while the PS4 hasn't used a price cut yet, sells at a higher price and still sells more than the X1.

And the only reason I think that Sony allowed the X1 to beat them so much by price is because they can't make enough PS4's to sell if they had dropped the price. Why? because at the start of the PS4s life, it was revealed that Sony could only make 1M PS4s a month. It might of improved since then but as of Jan 3rd, Sony reports 18.5M consoles sold. Being out 13 months and starting production months before launch and you can see that they probably couldn't sell much more before selves dried up and therefore price cuts would be a stupid move. Why sell the same amount for less? This is why I believe they only had limited deals. If Sony have more stock next year, do not expect them to give MS that huge price advantage again.

Overal I think the X1 can survive but get sell a lot less that the PS4 and it's predecessor. It's improved in sales but had to uses a lot of its aces.

huh? by most metrics they are actually wildly successful, they just aren't as successful as Sony this gen, your opinion that they must be first to be successful is really irrelevant to a business. both PS and XB are probably borderline on profit or loss, neither is making much money, niether is losing much money either.

everything but PS4 is a failure :O