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

Forums - Microsoft - Killing Off the Original Xbox: A Big Microsoft Mistake

http://seekingalpha.com/article/53614-killing-off-the-original-xbox-a-big-microsoft-mistake

 

The so-called console cycle sees new generations of machines released approximately every five to six years, but having a production life of around 10 years, the generations overlap. This enables the platform holder to have a two model range at different price points; an older, less expensive, model and a newer, more expensive, model.

Sony (SNE) launched the original Playstation in December 1994 and followed it with the Playstation 2 in March 2000, yet they kept the original Playstation in production until March 2006. So for six years they were selling both machines. A few months after stopping production of the original Playstation they launched the Playstation 3, in November 2006, and they were back to having a two model range. The Playstation 2 is still selling massively well worldwide, and so it should, it has about 4 years of production left to run.

Now Microsoft (MSFT) introduced the Xbox in November 2001 and deliberately brought out their next machine, the 360, just four years later, in November 2005, so as to be first to market with the next generation. They kept the two models as a range for just one year, killing off the original Xbox in November 2006 when it was just five years old.

To me it looks like they killed off the original Xbox half way through its life. They could have re-engineered it to make it far cheaper to manufacture (just as Sony did with the PSOne) and kept on selling it for another five years as part of a two product line. They would have sold tens of millions of additional units if the continuing success of the Playstation 2 is anything to go by.

Now imagine the benefits if they has kept the original Xbox alive. It would have given them market presence in the massive developing countries of China and India were lower incomes favor a cheaper machine. It would have brought millions of new people to Xbox live, helping to lock them into buying future generations of Microsoft consoles. And it would have made enormous profits from the continuing sale of the Xbox game back catalogue.

To me it looks like a very big mistake. Obviously Microsoft are not stupid and must have their reasons, but surely the potential upside of keeping it going would have made it worthwhile to work round any problems.

So do you think this was a big mistake? Or do you have good reasons for them to kill it off so soon?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Though I had an Xbox I think it was good it was killed off as it allowed for all the development from publishers/developers to focus on the Xbox360.  MS knew it needed to win next generation not just with an early start but with tons of games.  It also helped speed the transition to HD though thanks to the PS2 it has taken longer.  I think this is the first holiday we really see a shift as we have great games only available on next gen systems like skate, assasins creed, cod4 etc.  It was not a mistake at all but a really good decisions that I think has paied off.

 



Around the Network

killing off the xbox was good. I dont think there ever made a profit off of it.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 

Chances Microsoft regrets their decision: 0%



We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that they [developers] want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine and half years? It's a learning process. - SCEI president Kaz Hirai

It's a virus where you buy it and you play it with your friends and they're like, "Oh my God that's so cool, I'm gonna go buy it." So you stop playing it after two months, but they buy it and they stop playing it after two months but they've showed it to someone else who then go out and buy it and so on. Everyone I know bought one and nobody turns it on. - Epic Games president Mike Capps

We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games. - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick

 

The original Xbox hadn't quite seen its full graphical potential yet (unlike the PS2, which most certainly has.) I definitely think they killed it off a year too early, though I don't think it would have sold much more if they'd kept it alive. The Xbox doesn't have the back-catalog that the PS1 or PS2 have.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

Way back "in the day" there were a lot of discussions on how Nintendo could produce the Gamecube and sell it for $200 and break even while Microsoft sold the XBox for $300 and were rumored to lose over $100 per console when both consoles were so similar in processing power. The answer that made the most sense was that there were vast differences in licencing agreements ...

Nintendo choose a small tech company (ArtX) to produce their GPU potentially because the R&D costs were small and Nintendo would end up owning the design, whereas Microsoft choose nVidia even though it was well known that nVidia wouldn't sell technology they would only licence it. Nintendo choose IBM to produce their CPU based off of a core that IBM was pushing on smaller companies with affordable licencing fees, whereas Microsoft choose Intel because it would be familiar to PC developers.

Every component of the Gamecube (even the top loading drive) was choosen because it was cost effective whereas there seemed to be no consideration for the costs associated to the XBox. Even if Microsoft kept the XBox alive today I'm not sure they would be able to break even if they charged less than $150 ... I don't think that it is a particularly good idea to be losing money on 2 consoles at the same time.



Around the Network

The XBox's first mission was to produce market penetration so the XBox 360 could make a profit. They never planned to make a profit off of the original XBox, and expected to make money off of its successor.

The XBox's second mission was to destabilize Sony from taking over the living room. To do that, they needed to release the successor early so they could grab hardcore gamers with AWESOME GRAPHIX! So they cut the XBox's life short and released its successor a year early.

Microsoft knew exactly what it was doing.



There is no such thing as a console war. This is the first step to game design.

If microsoft wasnt here sony would be leading right now..



 

 2008 end of year predictions:

PS3: 22M

360: 25M

wii: 40M

HappySqurriel said:

Way back "in the day" there were a lot of discussions on how Nintendo could produce the Gamecube and sell it for $200 and break even while Microsoft sold the XBox for $300 and were rumored to lose over $100 per console when both consoles were so similar in processing power. The answer that made the most sense was that there were vast differences in licencing agreements ...

Nintendo choose a small tech company (ArtX) to produce their GPU potentially because the R&D costs were small and Nintendo would end up owning the design, whereas Microsoft choose nVidia even though it was well known that nVidia wouldn't sell technology they would only licence it. Nintendo choose IBM to produce their CPU based off of a core that IBM was pushing on smaller companies with affordable licencing fees, whereas Microsoft choose Intel because it would be familiar to PC developers.

Every component of the Gamecube (even the top loading drive) was choosen because it was cost effective whereas there seemed to be no consideration for the costs associated to the XBox. Even if Microsoft kept the XBox alive today I'm not sure they would be able to break even if they charged less than $150 ... I don't think that it is a particularly good idea to be losing money on 2 consoles at the same time.


Exactly. MS bailed out of the original Xbox because their deals with Nvidia and Intel ensured that the console would never be sold for profit.

Notice that the 360 doesn't involve either of those companies. There is a reason for that. MS was pretty angry at Nvidia for quite some time.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Because Nvida didn't give them price breaks, nor Intel on their products. There was almost no cost reduction - just discounts on what the products cost via normal reductions.

MS got screwed first gen, now they're reducing their prices oh-so quickly.

Think about it: 2 years ago, the Xbox 360 cost $523 for a premium.

Today it costs under $300 as far as we can tell. 2 years from now, it'll probably be sub-$150.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

microsoft had a pretty good stratagy i think. the only flaw was not accounting for the wii. but really, who the hell saw that coming prior to nintendo's press releases. i sure as hell didn't. although, in the end i think the wii is almost helping the 360 suceed by keeping any good press from the ps3.