Did the 360 have one year without competition?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

_AsasN_

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

Dear lord, are you saying that preference eliminates competition? If I prefer Coke to Pepsi, and buy a Coke, does this mean that they are not really competitors, rather they are... what? What adjective would you use? You have a made-up restriction on what constitutes competition, could you please make up a corresponding word to label it?

If I am driving down the highway, and I am hungry, and I pass by a BK, but I hate BK so I don't stop, and there is no other option in sight but I really hate BK so I keep going anyway, and Ieventually come to/stop at/eat at a McDonalds....how was this not a small, single serving competitive victory of McDonalds overBK? On what planet?

it did have a head start

you could say it had some competition, from last gen consoles, mainly the PS2, but it still had a head start over its competitors for this gen

All, right TC here is the 411. The X360 screwed up its year advantage. If you want to blame this on PS3/Wii, then go right on ahead, but it doesnt change the facts.II_Seraphim_II

That is a straight out fact. Who knowswhat would have happened if the console had not been a reliability disaster, it might be in a better position today, it might not. But the RROD completely blew up any advantage the 360 might have enjoyed from the year's head start (from things like the bigger library).

Still, this doesn't change the premise of my topic: anyone claiming it had no current-gen competition needs a refresher on what constitutes competition.

This topic is based off of another form of reality. The 360 didn't have any competition because there were no Next gen systems out there for it to compete against for 1 year. It was competing against the Gamecube and PS2 for 1 year because that was the only competition it had for sales. So when you see Microsoft touting they have sold 17 million Xbox360 which is more than what the PS3 has sold so far(I don't know the Current Wii sales.) You have to still take into consideration that the PS3 and Wii were not on the market when the Xbox sold it's first 6 or 7 million or more. Of course if you want to go into the Xbox360's competition it's first year. The PS2 still outsold it, and that does not eventake into accound what the handheld market did.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]All, right TC here is the 411. The X360 screwed up its year advantage. If you want to blame this on PS3/Wii, then go right on ahead, but it doesnt change the facts.dsmccracken

That is a straight out fact. Who knowswhat would have happened if the console had not been a reliability disaster, it might be in a better position today, it might not. But the RROD completely blew up any advantage the 360 might have enjoyed from the year's head start (from things like the bigger library).

Still, this doesn't change the premise of my topic: anyone claiming it had no current-gen competition needs a refresher on what constitutes competition.

fair enough, as adamant as I am about my position, i have to agree that u have some very good a valid points.

This topic is based off of another form of reality. The 360 didn't have any competition because there were no Next gen systems out there for it to compete against for 1 year. It was competing against the Gamecube and PS2 for 1 year because that was the only competition it had for sales. So when you see Microsoft touting they have sold 17 million Xbox360 which is more than what the PS3 has sold so far(I don't know the Current Wii sales.) You have to still take into consideration that the PS3 and Wii were not on the market when the Xbox sold it's first 6 or 7 million or more. Of course if you want to go into the Xbox360's competition it's first year. The PS2 still outsold it, and that does not eventake into accound what the handheld market did.

wiljas

So again, if someone waited a year for the PS3, rather than buy a 360, that was a lost sale to a competitor, but that's not competition? Then what in the world is it? Please create a new word and call the people at Webster's and Oxford.

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition,

nintendo-4life

Wrong. The PC was in direct gaming competition. I'm living proof of Microsoft losing a 360 sale because there were so many great PC games out, hence, no need for me to go elsewhere to get my gaming fix.

there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out,

nintendo-4life

Wrong. Tons of PC games.

there were no other options,

nintendo-4life

Wrong. The PC was a viable option when the 360 was the only current gen console out.

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

nintendo-4life

Sigh... this LACK OF ATTRACTION you speak of... finding the offering of the 360 unattractive, finding what the PS3 or Wii has promised more attractive, and buying the competitors' offerings instead, this is not competition? I think you are confusing the uses of the word competition in common usage. "I had no interest in the 360, it was never even a competition in my head" is not the same as what competition means in the business sense. Two companies marketing competing products that serve the same use, that is competition.

I don't know why you are talking about "fault." MS's fault, the competition's fault. Fault doesn't inform competition. If MS lost a sale due to something that was their fault, that fault is PART OF WHAT DECIDES THE COMPETITION. Bluray may have been a mistake or a stroke of genius, but it is certainly part of the competitive landscape.

To quote you, the 360 has had a year without any competition (and I am only interested in same-gen competition, not the PS2), so all the gamers who love Sony and held off to buy the PS3 did not do so because they chose one competitors offering over anothers? If this is not what the bloody dictionary definition of competition (or more like the result ofcompetition)is, I must be in Bizarro land.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition,

NerdMan

Wrong. The PC was in direct gaming competition. I'm living proof of Microsoft losing a 360 sale because there were so many great PC games out, hence, no need for me to go elsewhere to get my gaming fix.

there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out,

nintendo-4life

Wrong. Tons of PC games.

there were no other options,

nintendo-4life

Wrong. The PC was a viable option when the 360 was the only current gen console out.

overall though, i was talking about consoles only, otherwise i could have said X360 was in competition with the DS and the PSP ;)

Did the 360 have one year without competition?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

dsmccracken

Sigh... this LACK OF ATTRACTION you speak of... finding the offering of the 360 unattractive, finding what the PS3 or Wii has promised more attractive, and buying the competitors' offerings instead, this is not competition? I think you are confusing the uses of the word competition in common usage. "I had no interest in the 360, it was never even a competition in my head" is not the same as what competition means in the business sense. Two companies marketing competing products that serve the same use, that is competition.

I don't know why you are talking about "fault." MS's fault, the competition's fault. Fault doesn't inform competition. If MS lost a sale due to something that was their fault, that fault is PART OF WHAT DECIDES THE COMPETITION. Bluray may have been a mistake or a stroke of genius, but it is certainly part of the competitive landscape.

To quote you, the 360 has had a year without any competition (and I am only interested in same-gen competition, not the PS2), so all the gamers who love Sony and held off to buy the PS3 did not do so because they chose one competitors offering over anothers? If this is not what the bloody dictionary definition of competition (or more like the result ofcompetition)is, I must be in Bizarro land.

lack of attraction definitly has nothing to do with competition. for instance, many people thought the X360's launch titles.. or even the entire 2006 line up wasn't good enough, and thus thought that the console was not worth buying. now tell me, these people weren't wowed by the 360, so why would they buy it? the fact that there are more consoles on the way is irrelevent if the consumer didn't see the system as worthy to begin with.

competition resulted the head start, to that extent you are right, but if there was competition from beforethe release of the actual consoles .. then why did the X360 sales and software exclusivity go down when the actual consoles released?

PS. please don't sigh, it's rude and unpleasant, if you're looking for an argument i gave you one, if you don't like, then tell me why, but sighing is not only irrelevent, it puts you ona lower level than you actually are.

it had no current gen competion on the shelves....but everyone was aware that new systems were coming out. but still, it did have a year head start.prodiqy32

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

nintendo-4life

Sigh... this LACK OF ATTRACTION you speak of... finding the offering of the 360 unattractive, finding what the PS3 or Wii has promised more attractive, and buying the competitors' offerings instead, this is not competition? I think you are confusing the uses of the word competition in common usage. "I had no interest in the 360, it was never even a competition in my head" is not the same as what competition means in the business sense. Two companies marketing competing products that serve the same use, that is competition.

I don't know why you are talking about "fault." MS's fault, the competition's fault. Fault doesn't inform competition. If MS lost a sale due to something that was their fault, that fault is PART OF WHAT DECIDES THE COMPETITION. Bluray may have been a mistake or a stroke of genius, but it is certainly part of the competitive landscape.

To quote you, the 360 has had a year without any competition (and I am only interested in same-gen competition, not the PS2), so all the gamers who love Sony and held off to buy the PS3 did not do so because they chose one competitors offering over anothers? If this is not what the bloody dictionary definition of competition (or more like the result ofcompetition)is, I must be in Bizarro land.

lack of attraction definitly has nothing to do with competition. for instance, many people thought the X360's launch titles.. or even the entire 2006 line up wasn't good enough, and thus thought that the console was not worth buying. now tell me, these people weren't wowed by the 360, so why would they buy it? the fact that there are more consoles on the way is irrelevent if the consumer didn't see the system as worthy to begin with.

competition resulted the head start, to that extent you are right, but if there was competition from beforethe release of the actual consoles .. then why did the X360 sales and software exclusivity go down when the actual consoles released?

PS. please don't sigh, it's rude and unpleasant, if you're looking for an argument i gave you one, if you don't like, then tell me why, but sighing is not only irrelevent, it puts you ona lower level than you actually are.

You may be right that MS is at fault for not capitalizing on the head start, and not Sony or Nintendo. However, competition as an act or series actions and reactions is not dependent on who's to blame. I may be at fault for an accident. You might be at fault. It might have been neither, and caused by a faulty traffic light, or weather, but it doesn't mean there was no accident.

The 360's sales and exclusives plumeted, not because there was finally competition upon the launch of the PS3/Wii, but because those launches racheted up/intensified the competition. Is this the divide? That the competition was not and could not be "full-on" until the PS3 and the Wii were out? Well, if this is what we're bickering over, let it be done, as that is self-evident. The competition was not as intense (how could it be?) until all 3 were on shelves... and yes, the PC too Nerdman.

As for those who didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, let me build a what-if scenario. If by act of magic genie, the competition did not exist for MS. They invented videogaming, there was no PS1/2/3, no NES/SNES/Wii, no... well, you get the idea. Would anyone argue that many more people (and in that 1st year) would own a 360, with nothing else to choose from and no possibility of there ever being another choice? Some might still refuse b/c of the RROD, but when you say competition is irrelevant if people didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, would you deny that this might be changed if there was nothing to compare it against or an alternative to hope for? Regardless, you surely don't think that this applies to every single last consumer who passed on the 360, do you? Because I only need 1, one guy in Iowa somewhere, to be right. Only one.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

dsmccracken

Sigh... this LACK OF ATTRACTION you speak of... finding the offering of the 360 unattractive, finding what the PS3 or Wii has promised more attractive, and buying the competitors' offerings instead, this is not competition? I think you are confusing the uses of the word competition in common usage. "I had no interest in the 360, it was never even a competition in my head" is not the same as what competition means in the business sense. Two companies marketing competing products that serve the same use, that is competition.

I don't know why you are talking about "fault." MS's fault, the competition's fault. Fault doesn't inform competition. If MS lost a sale due to something that was their fault, that fault is PART OF WHAT DECIDES THE COMPETITION. Bluray may have been a mistake or a stroke of genius, but it is certainly part of the competitive landscape.

To quote you, the 360 has had a year without any competition (and I am only interested in same-gen competition, not the PS2), so all the gamers who love Sony and held off to buy the PS3 did not do so because they chose one competitors offering over anothers? If this is not what the bloody dictionary definition of competition (or more like the result ofcompetition)is, I must be in Bizarro land.

lack of attraction definitly has nothing to do with competition. for instance, many people thought the X360's launch titles.. or even the entire 2006 line up wasn't good enough, and thus thought that the console was not worth buying. now tell me, these people weren't wowed by the 360, so why would they buy it? the fact that there are more consoles on the way is irrelevent if the consumer didn't see the system as worthy to begin with.

competition resulted the head start, to that extent you are right, but if there was competition from beforethe release of the actual consoles .. then why did the X360 sales and software exclusivity go down when the actual consoles released?

PS. please don't sigh, it's rude and unpleasant, if you're looking for an argument i gave you one, if you don't like, then tell me why, but sighing is not only irrelevent, it puts you ona lower level than you actually are.

You may be right that MS is at fault for not capitalizing on the head start, and not Sony or Nintendo. However, competition as an act or series actions and reactions is not dependent on who's to blame. I may be at fault for an accident. You might be at fault. It might have been neither, and caused by a faulty traffic light, or weather, but it doesn't mean there was no accident.

The 360's sales and exclusives plumeted, not because there was finally competition upon the launch of the PS3/Wii, but because those launches racheted up/intensified the competition. Is this the divide? That the competition was not and could not be "full-on" until the PS3 and the Wii were out? Well, if this is what we're bickering over, let it be done, as that is self-evident. The competition was not as intense (how could it be?) until all 3 were on shelves... and yes, the PC too Nerdman.

As for those who didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, let me build a what-if scenario. If by act of magic genie, the competition did not exist for MS. They invented videogaming, there was no PS1/2/3, no NES/SNES/Wii, no... well, you get the idea. Would anyone argue that many more people (and in that 1st year) would own a 360, with nothing else to choose from and no possibility of there ever being another choice? Some might still refuse b/c of the RROD, but when you say competition is irrelevant if people didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, would you deny that this might be changed if there was nothing to compare it against or an alternative to hope for? Regardless, you surely don't think that this applies to every single last consumer who passed on the 360, do you? Because I only need 1, one guy in Iowa somewhere, to be right. Only one.

aaaaaaaaaanyway...

That accident accured because ofa reason.. you might be right, it might not be anyone's fault... actually scratch that, there's someone, at least one person, who's to blame if any accident occured, if it was the weather, the drivers should have been driving more carefully, if it was a faulty traffic light then the person who allowed this accident to occur is to blame, of course it's not directly, but if there were no mistakes, there shouldn't be an accident. However in this particular case, MS is definitely to blame on the lousy sales they have been producing. NOT sony or nintendo, it's clear as day, they didn't do anything to attract the japnese market, only the american market, and that's just one example.

The rules and logicthat magic genie applied were accurate but sadly.... a magic genie does not really play a role here now does it? let me elaborate: of course we are talking about competition between X360 and PS3 & Wii, but the ultimate competition, between the companies goes way back. MS, Ninty ,and Sony have had a fight before correct? so when a gamer saw the X360, he didn't even have the PS3 OR wii in mind, he had the last gen's standards. So he's not comparing X360 to any other console, he's comparing it to the standards, i know i have.

i'm not saying that what you're saying isn't possible, i know it is and i know that it was the case on hundreds of people..... but is it really big enough to be called a competition? is it valid enough? i would say no, because of the four points i have listed above completely blows away this small group creating the competition in the first place.

............ did that make sense? :?

The problem is that under capitalist macroeconomics, the simple fact that they were not yet released means that they were indirect competition, that is to say, they were not PHYSICAL options. Regardless of how much competition they were to the 360 (and if you ask me, quite a lot), they were still indirect competition because they were not an available commodity. "To repeat, competition is the battle for sales between brands that perform the same function. If the 360 loses a sale to the PS3, it has lost a sale due to competition...." This phrase confuses me. I thought that at the very least, you and I both agree that they are brands that perform the same function and are in competition with one another from not only the release of the 360, but the conception of all three consoles.

Realistically, for you or I to prove that they (PS3 and Wii) were either direct or indirect competition from the release date of the 360 to the release date of the Wii and PS3 requires comprehensive data that states X amount of people purchased the xbox 360 in comparison with X amount of people who decided to wait and purchase one of the other options. Also, you need far more than one person (or even 1,000 or more) to prove that previous to the launch of the PS3 and Wii said systems were direct competition; though you are right in saying that all you need is one person whom made the choice to wait for another system to prove your point. If one person waited, then either one or both systems were competition.

"indirect competition" can be exceptionally complex, and there are many examples. The current-gen system war is one, the previous example concerning currently available Mustangs and the 09 Camaro is another, but there are examples of indirect competition which involve two currently available products as well. The purpose or definition of "indirect competition" can vary due to context. That 99 cent pack of smokes at the store sitting next to the Camels? They're indirect competition, not direct. Marlboro are in DIRECT competition with Camel, the cheap brand is indirect competition. This is not a product of availability, but demographic. Yes, I will admit that there was far greater competition (even if it is indirect) between the Xbox and the unreleased systems due to the nature of the video game industry (in comparison to the auto industry with the 08 Mustang and 09 Camaro). Likewise, we could get into semantics concerning the nature of each video game console and the breadth (or diminution) of the term "indirect competition." For a fanboy, all systems of every generation have always been indirect competition for their preferred system (provided that we agree an ardent fanboy will not recognize competing systems in the same category as their system). The term "indirect competition" can be applicable where availability, demographic, and category (among other options) are concerned. Furthermore, in this case, if we are to prove whether or not they were direct competition prior to their release, we have to find a consensus which states what characteristics of a product are most important in a competitive situation, and which two or more characteristics cumulatively out-weight one characteristic. Given the price, technical specs, demographic, and predominant genres on the system, one could compose an argument which rationally states that the Wii has NEVER been direct competition for the PS3 and Xbox 360.

So, yes, all you need is one person who says "I waited" to say that they were - generally - in competition with one another, but you need far more information to prove that they were in direct competition with each other prior to the release of Sony and Nintendo's respective systems. Likewise, all I need is one person who says "the Nintendo Wii and Xbox 360 are not even in the same category" to prove that they (the PS3/360 v Wii) are still and will always be indirect competition, which is plausable.

I've come to this conclusion: For either of us to prove they were in competition directly or indirectly prior to the release of the PS3 and Wii (and possibly the 360's) both of us would require far more information concerning numerous topics, primarily demographic, sales ratios related to before and after the release dates of the two systems, format (type of disc, television, prominent genre(s) etc), primary region where the majority of the company's marketing funds are expended etc. I suspect that there is more valid information concerning the direct competition between the PS3 and 360, possibly even before market availability, than there is for either system compared to the Wii prior to the PS3 and Wii's release, and possibly now. Though where current competition is concerned, it would be hard to state conclusively that the Wii and 360/PS3 continue to be indirect competitors, even though there are moderately compatible facts, such as the fact that the majority of people who want both systems have a tendency to get both (the Wii with one of the other two), and the corporate relationship between Microsoft and Nintendo offers a subtle compliment to this assertion as well. Regardless, the Wii did NOT serve as a direct competitor to the 360 prior to the release, and I believe I can and do offer a valid argument for that statement. When considering the competition between the PS3/360 prior to the release of the PS3 might prove to be more difficult (though proving they were direct competitors would be comparable).

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

nintendo-4life

Sigh... this LACK OF ATTRACTION you speak of... finding the offering of the 360 unattractive, finding what the PS3 or Wii has promised more attractive, and buying the competitors' offerings instead, this is not competition? I think you are confusing the uses of the word competition in common usage. "I had no interest in the 360, it was never even a competition in my head" is not the same as what competition means in the business sense. Two companies marketing competing products that serve the same use, that is competition.

I don't know why you are talking about "fault." MS's fault, the competition's fault. Fault doesn't inform competition. If MS lost a sale due to something that was their fault, that fault is PART OF WHAT DECIDES THE COMPETITION. Bluray may have been a mistake or a stroke of genius, but it is certainly part of the competitive landscape.

To quote you, the 360 has had a year without any competition (and I am only interested in same-gen competition, not the PS2), so all the gamers who love Sony and held off to buy the PS3 did not do so because they chose one competitors offering over anothers? If this is not what the bloody dictionary definition of competition (or more like the result ofcompetition)is, I must be in Bizarro land.

lack of attraction definitly has nothing to do with competition. for instance, many people thought the X360's launch titles.. or even the entire 2006 line up wasn't good enough, and thus thought that the console was not worth buying. now tell me, these people weren't wowed by the 360, so why would they buy it? the fact that there are more consoles on the way is irrelevent if the consumer didn't see the system as worthy to begin with.

competition resulted the head start, to that extent you are right, but if there was competition from beforethe release of the actual consoles .. then why did the X360 sales and software exclusivity go down when the actual consoles released?

PS. please don't sigh, it's rude and unpleasant, if you're looking for an argument i gave you one, if you don't like, then tell me why, but sighing is not only irrelevent, it puts you ona lower level than you actually are.

You may be right that MS is at fault for not capitalizing on the head start, and not Sony or Nintendo. However, competition as an act or series actions and reactions is not dependent on who's to blame. I may be at fault for an accident. You might be at fault. It might have been neither, and caused by a faulty traffic light, or weather, but it doesn't mean there was no accident.

The 360's sales and exclusives plumeted, not because there was finally competition upon the launch of the PS3/Wii, but because those launches racheted up/intensified the competition. Is this the divide? That the competition was not and could not be "full-on" until the PS3 and the Wii were out? Well, if this is what we're bickering over, let it be done, as that is self-evident. The competition was not as intense (how could it be?) until all 3 were on shelves... and yes, the PC too Nerdman.

As for those who didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, let me build a what-if scenario. If by act of magic genie, the competition did not exist for MS. They invented videogaming, there was no PS1/2/3, no NES/SNES/Wii, no... well, you get the idea. Would anyone argue that many more people (and in that 1st year) would own a 360, with nothing else to choose from and no possibility of there ever being another choice? Some might still refuse b/c of the RROD, but when you say competition is irrelevant if people didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, would you deny that this might be changed if there was nothing to compare it against or an alternative to hope for? Regardless, you surely don't think that this applies to every single last consumer who passed on the 360, do you? Because I only need 1, one guy in Iowa somewhere, to be right. Only one.

aaaaaaaaaanyway...

That accident accured because ofa reason.. you might be right, it might not be anyone's fault... actually scratch that, there's someone, at least one person, who's to blame if any accident occured, if it was the weather, the drivers should have been driving more carefully, if it was a faulty traffic light then the person who allowed this accident to occur is to blame, of course it's not directly, but if there were no mistakes, there shouldn't be an accident. However in this particular case, MS is definitely to blame on the lousy sales they have been producing. NOT sony or nintendo, it's clear as day, they didn't do anything to attract the japnese market, only the american market, and that's just one example.

The rules and logicthat magic genie applied were accurate but sadly.... a magic genie does not really play a role here now does it? let me elaborate: of course we are talking about competition between X360 and PS3 & Wii, but the ultimate competition, between the companies goes way back. MS, Ninty ,and Sony have had a fight before correct? so when a gamer saw the X360, he didn't even have the PS3 OR wii in mind, he had the last gen's standards. So he's not comparing X360 to any other console, he's comparing it to the standards, i know i have.

i'm not saying that what you're saying isn't possible, i know it is and i know that it was the case on hundreds of people..... but is it really big enough to be called a competition? is it valid enough? i would say no, because of the four points i have listed above completely blows away this small group creating the competition in the first place.

............ did that make sense? :?

That competition (Microsoft's MSX vs. NES in Japan, Microsoft vs. Sony last gen, Sony and Nintendo's proposed callaboration etc) magnifies the current competition. From the perspective of MS, Sony, and Nintendo, the competition between these SPECIFIC systems predates the release of all three of them, and their current general competition began last generation. Also, marketing and advertising (which are not only competition, but were expressly produced in a competitive manner) preceded the release of all three systems as well.You're logic and assertions are relatively sound and certainly within reason, but they are rather obtuse.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

dsmccracken

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

This isn't true competition. Using your logic, the 360 was also competing against gas prices, groceries, movies, and going out for dinner...because I spent money on those things instead of buying a 360. Economics has a name for that and it isn't "competition".

In short, you are wrong and owned for acting so arrogant in your responses to others.

then you have the DS, and psp and the ps2 those we're all competition for gamers.

Both 360 fanboy sand ps3 fanboys like to forget that if their is a game system taking sales from other then its competition regardless of its gen.

this is like what came first the chicken or the egg. both sides are making valid points supporting their argument. the bottom line is that both sides are right to an extent. I for one am one of those people who had a ps1, ps2, and waited the extra year for a ps3. So by definition, despite the system not being on the shelves, it was already purchased in my mind, and therefore affected microsofts sales by one consumer. And then on the other hand, for the people who are casual gamers, or first time gamers, who have no brand loyalty, but rather just want to play the latest and greatest in video games, in that case the 360 didn't have any next gen competition simply because when you walked in the store to find a next gen video game system, it was the only one available. So once again both sides make valid points, but the bottom line is that the 360 did have a head start, HOWEVER the numbers don't reflect it as accurately as they should because of people like me who were predetermined to buy another system. I do believe however that there were far more people out there who bought the 360 simply because it was the only one available at the time compared to the people who decided to wait for the ps3 or wii. just my opinion.sixringz1

Competition is not specifically defined by consumer choices or thoughts, competition isin great part catalyzed by the consumer's reaction, but that consumer's decisions is also informed my marketing and advertising...a major factor in competition. Your opinione is valid, nonetheless, but some of your examples and references rarely if ever affect the existence of competition, in such a situation or context, that is.

This thread is quite funny. The 360 had no competition for a year full stop. You can't compete against something that isn't out yet. The TC's argument is based on a theoretical mindset based on the "mind of gamers" as he so put it. Yet it is a physical fact that the 360 had no current-gen competition for 1 year since its release. If we go by the TC's logic, we may as well never buy anything ever again since there will always be something that might be in competition with it that's potentially better. I don't want to waste my money on life.

Is the PC currently in competition with next-gen consoles? What if somebody doesn't buy a PC because they're waiting for the PS4? Are you seriously telling me that there is competition with something that isn't out yet? If there are no other viable alternatives then there is no competition. You can't have a competative market if there is only one company in the market at the time. Your logic ftl.

Is the PC currently in competition with next-gen consoles? What if somebody doesn't buy a PC because they're waiting for the PS4? Are you seriously telling me that there is competition with something that isn't out yet? If there are no other viable alternatives then there is no competition. You can't have a competative market if there is only one company in the market at the time. Your logic ftl.

raynimrod

Huh? So you're saying the PC does not compete in any way with the 360, PS3, or Wii?

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

Is the PC currently in competition with next-gen consoles? What if somebody doesn't buy a PC because they're waiting for the PS4? Are you seriously telling me that there is competition with something that isn't out yet? If there are no other viable alternatives then there is no competition. You can't have a competative market if there is only one company in the market at the time. Your logic ftl.

NerdMan

Huh? So you're saying the PC does not compete in any way with the 360, PS3, or Wii?

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

ZIMdoom

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

This isn't true competition. Using your logic, the 360 was also competing against gas prices, groceries, movies, and going out for dinner...because I spent money on those things instead of buying a 360. Economics has a name for that and it isn't "competition".

In short, you are wrong and owned for acting so arrogant in your responses to others.

Hey kettle, you're black. Anyway, business does recognize everything is indirectly in competition with everything else for your discretionary income, and you would know that if you spent a single moment in an introductorybusiness course. Even further, it is self-evident that the PS3 is a much more direct competitor with the 360 than gas or groceries whether on or off of shelves, so you, in fact, are self-owned. Lastly, and an above poster makes a good point, if the PS3 begins advertising and other marketing activities that are expressly competitive in nature before release... and it did... how can you possibly argue that the competition was not "on" before release?

To end my contribution to this thread, I must say that few if any of you exhibit a thorough understanding of economics or corporate culture. You have apparently failed to pursue any education concerning economics beyond the basic course required under current US standards during senior year. The thread creator does in fact have a firm grasp on the concept of competition between companies or corporations in the same market or category.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I REPEAT, COMPETITION IS NOTCATALYZED BY THE CONSUMER EXCLUSIVELY, NOR IS COMPETITION PRECLUDED BY UNAVAILABILITY OF A GIVEN PRODUCT.

Is every discussion in this forum a product of fanboyism? It doesn't seem to be about facts or rationale. The responses are a product of A. The original poster's console preference, and B. how the individual's opinion reflects upon the competing system. None of you assert that the Xbox had no competition from an enlightened perspective, you do so to accommodate your position. Capitalism and economics aren't as simple as what you're taught in middle school, high school, or even in undergraduate studies.

Attempting to understand the majority of the posters' logic is painfully arduous, to say the least.

This thread is quite funny. The 360 had no competition for a year full stop. You can't compete against something that isn't out yet. The TC's argument is based on a theoretical mindset based on the "mind of gamers" as he so put it. Yet it is a physical fact that the 360 had no current-gen competition for 1 year since its release. If we go by the TC's logic, we may as well never buy anything ever again since there will always be something that might be in competition with it that's potentially better. I don't want to waste my money on life.

Is the PC currently in competition with next-gen consoles? What if somebody doesn't buy a PC because they're waiting for the PS4? Are you seriously telling me that there is competition with something that isn't out yet? If there are no other viable alternatives then there is no competition. You can't have a competative market if there is only one company in the market at the time. Your logic ftl.

raynimrod

You may find this thread funny, but I assure you the companies don't. If you asked a MS exec in the marketing dept., say 3 months before the PS3 hit shelves, whether the competition between systems had begun, do you really think he would say no? Someone in the marketing department would have direct personal knowledge that the competition between competitors involves much more than just the point-of-purchase sale. You even refer to the "mind of gamers" thing, presumably to dismiss it. That only physical presence on shelves is competition. Then what the hell is advertising and other marketing functions? Are you saying that no one had their minds made up about which system to get until they were on shelves? Were those massive lines on PS3'slaunch day across the world an illusion?

This thread is quite funny. The 360 had no competition for a year full stop. You can't compete against something that isn't out yet. The TC's argument is based on a theoretical mindset based on the "mind of gamers" as he so put it. Yet it is a physical fact that the 360 had no current-gen competition for 1 year since its release. If we go by the TC's logic, we may as well never buy anything ever again since there will always be something that might be in competition with it that's potentially better. I don't want to waste my money on life.

Is the PC currently in competition with next-gen consoles? What if somebody doesn't buy a PC because they're waiting for the PS4? Are you seriously telling me that there is competition with something that isn't out yet? If there are no other viable alternatives then there is no competition. You can't have a competative market if there is only one company in the market at the time. Your logic ftl.

raynimrod

You clearly need to expand how you define competition in a business sense. If you think of it in terms of competition on a sports field, then yes, just like in sports, both teams need to be on the field (or shelf) for there to be a competition.

However, things are not this simple in business. Products compete, through marketing functions, on Product, Place, Price, and Promotions. The PS3 and Wii both had announced their pricesprior to launch (you may have missed it, there wasn't much attention paid to the PS3 price). The PS3 and Wii's product details (also not noticed much, something called blu... ah, I can't remember, and Wiimo... nah, can't remember that either) were also known prior to launch. There was some advertising done prior to launch also, I seem to vaguely remember a poster campaign that literally blanketed my city months before launch, but maybe I dreamed that up. Literally the ONLY front the PS3 and Wii were not competing on until launch was at the point-of-purchase, yet even there there were large promotional structures trumpeting the release dates and suggeting preorders. But no, surely none of this counts in any way as actsof product competition.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

dsmccracken

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

This isn't true competition. Using your logic, the 360 was also competing against gas prices, groceries, movies, and going out for dinner...because I spent money on those things instead of buying a 360. Economics has a name for that and it isn't "competition".

In short, you are wrong and owned for acting so arrogant in your responses to others.

Hey kettle, you're black. Anyway, business does recognize everything is indirectly in competition with everything else for your discretionary income, and you would know that if you spent a single moment in an introductorybusiness course. Even further, it is self-evident that the PS3 is a much more direct competitor with the 360 than gas or groceries whether on or off of shelves, so you, in fact, are self-owned. Lastly, and an above poster makes a good point, if the PS3 begins advertising and other marketing activities that are expressly competitive in nature before release... and it did... how can you possibly argue that the competition was not "on" before release?

I know I can be kettle-like...it's how I spotted you. 8)

If talking about an upcoming product is enough to consider it competition, then the PS2 was competing with the PS3 because SOny has been talking about a PS3 since the PS1 has been out. Not to mention the fact that we all know consoles come out in 5 years. So consoles that just came out are already competing with the shadow of consoles that will be out in possible 3 years from now.

I said before that there is a name in economics. I believe it was called "opportunity cost". That is the idea that we all have to weigh how we spend our money. The opportunity cost of a 360 isn't $399...it's $399 plus the cost of any other goods you might buy if you didn't get the 360. We always are weighting the opportunity costs when we buy any product and we make purchasing decisions based on whether or not we feel the product is worth the opportunity cost.

Now, combine this with what I believe is your biggest error...the belief that John Q. Public thinks and acts like those of us on gaming forums. I get your point, but I think it only applies to people like us. People who follow the industry closely and regularly discuss gaming know when consoles will come out well in advance of the general public. We are also more likely to know the games that will come out and what feautures the console will have, etc. I'm not certain the average casual knows this.

I think the casual gamer saw the 360 in stores and didn't think for one second about the PS3 or Wii. At least not the way you or I would have (ie. balanced the consoles we had researched with the one that was out). I think they made their decision to buy a 360 or wait on things more like price, or they just didn't have money saved yet, or there just weren't games they wanted yet, etc.

Also, even if they did know about the PS3 and Wii, it may have only been a curiosity, or their mind may have been already made up based on what they owned previously, or there is no guarantee they wouldn't buy the 360 anyway (or all three).

So while I get what you are saying, I disagree. I don't think there was any competition. I think it is more political than capital. Unless people see two products sitting on the shelf, side by side, they tend to filter everything through their existing beliefs. So Xbox fans were going to buy 360 regardless. PS and NGC fans were going to wait regardless. Fanboys had their minds made up already, and the real gamers already knew they would buy everything already, or had a general idea of which one or two consoles they would most likely chose based on past experience. In my opinion, much like in politics, only a very small minority of casuals truly researched the choices (avilable or not), weighed their options, then made up their made based on which console they believed would offer the best gaming experience for their tastes.

I think competition as you describe it, whether direct or indirect, requires a level of objectivity, intellectual involvement and caring that the vast majority of consumers simply don't have. Therefore it doesn't apply outside of a place such as SW.

I may be mistaken, Zim, but I think his intent, at least originally, was to focus on the relationship between the hardware manufacturers with consideration of the consumer, rather than define when the competition began based upon the various consumer perspectives/niches. Regardless of how the consumer reacted to available hardware and upcoming hardware, the console manufacturers were in competition (though, like you said, this could be more political than fiscal). I agree with what you said about pre-released marketing being aimed squarely at us, rather than the casual video game consumer population, but I also suspect that hardware manufacturers expect said pre-release marketing to also affect the opinion of casual video game consumers, if only marginally.

Ok, so the last post wasn't my closing post, so be it.

If talking about an upcoming product is enough to consider it competition, then the PS2 was competing with the PS3 because SOny has been talking about a PS3 since the PS1 has been out. Not to mention the fact that we all know consoles come out in 5 years. So consoles that just came out are already competing with the shadow of consoles that will be out in possible 3 years from now.

I said before that there is a name in economics. I believe it was called "opportunity cost". That is the idea that we all have to weigh how we spend our money. The opportunity cost of a 360 isn't $399...it's $399 plus the cost of any other goods you might buy if you didn't get the 360. We always are weighting the opportunity costs when we buy any product and we make purchasing decisions based on whether or not we feel the product is worth the opportunity cost.

Now, combine this with what I believe is your biggest error...the belief that John Q. Public thinks and acts like those of us on gaming forums. I get your point, but I think it only applies to people like us. People who follow the industry closely and regularly discuss gaming know when consoles will come out well in advance of the general public. We are also more likely to know the games that will come out and what feautures the console will have, etc. I'm not certain the average casual knows this.

I think the casual gamer saw the 360 in stores and didn't think for one second about the PS3 or Wii. At least not the way you or I would have (ie. balanced the consoles we had researched with the one that was out). I think they made their decision to buy a 360 or wait on things more like price, or they just didn't have money saved yet, or there just weren't games they wanted yet, etc.

Also, even if they did know about the PS3 and Wii, it may have only been a curiosity, or their mind may have been already made up based on what they owned previously, or there is no guarantee they wouldn't buy the 360 anyway (or all three).

So while I get what you are saying, I disagree. I don't think there was any competition. I think it is more political than capital. Unless people see two products sitting on the shelf, side by side, they tend to filter everything through their existing beliefs. So Xbox fans were going to buy 360 regardless. PS and NGC fans were going to wait regardless. Fanboys had their minds made up already, and the real gamers already knew they would buy everything already, or had a general idea of which one or two consoles they would most likely chose based on past experience. In my opinion, much like in politics, only a very small minority of casuals truly researched the choices (avilable or not), weighed their options, then made up their made based on which console they believed would offer the best gaming experience for their tastes.

I think competition as you describe it, whether direct or indirect, requires a level of objectivity, intellectual involvement and caring that the vast majority of consumers simply don't have. Therefore it doesn't apply outside of a place such as SW.

ZIMdoom

I absolutely agree, you could consider that the PS2 competed with the PS3 in your scenario... except that I explicitly stated at the beginning of the thread (and at many times throughout) that I was only talking about same-gen competitors. A single company's product line can and does compete with itself, it's called "product cannabilization."

You seem to grant me my point, but only with gamers "like us" and not the general public. To this I'd say: We count. The number of living, breathing, testifying Cows on this site that waited for the PS3, and have said as much countless hundreds of times on this very site, proves that they both exist, and count, as competition. If you want to turn the argument around andsay they aren't "important" competition, go ahead, but that wasn't the topic, and it wouldn't be true. Competition is competition for ANY sale, not just a sale to a casual. The mass market doesn't generally chime in until the pricing hits the $200 "sweet spot" anyway, so pre or post-launch, the early adopters like us rule and are of the utmost importance to marketers. We are the target group that informs which way the casuals head. It could be argued, for instance,that early adopters (with help from the studios naturally) decided the bluray/hddvd format war before the casual home entertainment fan even had a chance to step up.

As for the talk about researched and weighed choices, I don't see how this is impactful. Whether someone made an informed choice or simply picked the PS3 because they like the colour black, a sale is still a win for the PS3.

i get what you and the TC were trying to say and i do admit i have not studied economics as you obviously have (but i will next semester :P), but right now i cannot agree with you at all. sorry, i'm still not convinced :)

That's so unbelievably off-topic, Darkspineslayer.YourChaosIsntMe

the TC's point was PS3 and Wii already influenced the X360's sales even in it's first year, but ifthe reason for the lackluster sales were indeed the games, then that proves that there was indeed NO outside influence.

would you please explain what exactly is so obtuse about my logic? whether or not the the advertising preceedes the console is certainly irrelevent because they all had that feature (other than nintendo in this specific case, if you would kindly recall the Wii's past. you'd find that hype was built only two months prior MS's beast released.), but what we are talking about is Microsoft's upper hand, a feature that was exclusive to them in this case. the release of their console a whopping year before the compitition gives them the upper hand, yes that act was a result of competition, but it's more like "getting ready" to start the war, they made that strategy in order to have time without competition. now how can you get ready if the fight is already upon you? no, you getting ready is always before the actual fight... do you see where i'm going with this?

i get what you and the TC were trying to say and i do admit i have not studied economics as you obviously have (but i will next semester :P), but right now i cannot agree with you at all. sorry, i'm still not convinced :)

nintendo-4life

I don't know about the obtuse part, I've enjoyed debating with you.

I think where we differ is on what we consider "competition." I'm going to repeat a bit of what I've said before, but you seem to consider competition in sportingterms. Both teams have to be on the field, both boxers have to be in the ring, for the"fight to be on." Think of it more in business terms. The shelf is one front, but only one. You TV is another. So is PR, like an event sponsored by the PS3. So is an announced price. All but the first of that list require the product to already be released.

Get away from sports, and think of the military. When does war begin? When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, was the war not on even though only one group had their "product on the shelf?" And if you don't consider war technically begun until it is officially declared by the Japanese ambassador or Roosevelt, isn't this more akin to pre-launch advertising than it is to having actual units in the field?

[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"]That's so unbelievably off-topic, Darkspineslayer.nintendo-4life

the TC's point was PS3 and Wii already influenced the X360's sales even in it's first year, but ifthe reason for the lackluster sales were indeed the games, then that proves that there was indeed NO outside influence.

How does a competitor making mistakes make it cease to be a competition? Like I said earlier, the PS3's bluray playermay have been stupidity or genius, but no one would argue that it hasn't informed the competitive landscape. If Coke screws up (e.g. the 80s New Coke fiasco), you're saying that this is not part of the competition with Pepsi? To borrow from the world of sports (ironically since I've chided against that in this very thread), a blown catch by Moss is still a part of the competition even if not forced by the opponent, not some extraneous non-related event. The mistakes a competitor makes affect the outcome of a competition (in war/sports/business/ or anything) at LEAST as much as what the opponent does right.

I'll give it to you that there's a psychological competition and people that planned on getting/waiting for the other consoles, but it surely isn't even close to a competition when all consoles are actually out.Xolver

I addressed this a few pages back. There is no denying that the competition before all three stooges was certainly not as hot or "full-on" as after they were all on shelves. I only maintain that there "WAS" competition, how much or how little there was EXACTLY involves buying a scale that only god can design. Further, and I didn't say this from the get-go but I've said it since, it was at least a significant amount as the battle for early adopters informs the future of a product battle.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

would you please explain what exactly is so obtuse about my logic? whether or not the the advertising preceedes the console is certainly irrelevent because they all had that feature (other than nintendo in this specific case, if you would kindly recall the Wii's past. you'd find that hype was built only two months prior MS's beast released.), but what we are talking about is Microsoft's upper hand, a feature that was exclusive to them in this case. the release of their console a whopping year before the compitition gives them the upper hand, yes that act was a result of competition, but it's more like "getting ready" to start the war, they made that strategy in order to have time without competition. now how can you get ready if the fight is already upon you? no, you getting ready is always before the actual fight... do you see where i'm going with this?

i get what you and the TC were trying to say and i do admit i have not studied economics as you obviously have (but i will next semester :P), but right now i cannot agree with you at all. sorry, i'm still not convinced :)

dsmccracken

I don't know about the obtuse part, I've enjoyed debating with you.

I think where we differ is on what we consider "competition." I'm going to repeat a bit of what I've said before, but you seem to consider competition in sportingterms. Both teams have to be on the field, both boxers have to be in the ring, for the"fight to be on." Think of it more in business terms. The shelf is one front, but only one. You TV is another. So is PR, like an event sponsored by the PS3. So is an announced price. All but the first of that list require the product to already be released.

Get away from sports, and think of the military. When does war begin? When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, was the war not on even though only one group had their "product on the shelf?" And if you don't consider war technically begun until it is officially declared by the Japanese ambassador or Roosevelt, isn't this more akin to pre-launch advertising than it is to having actual units in the field?

so anyway... about the war thing.... lets talk about surprise attacks, a surprise attack is generated through competition, i believe you would agree to that much, but what we don't agree if the attack itself is considered competition or not. personally, i believe that if the other side has no hand on this matter, it's not competition, and that's the case with the 360, neither sony nor nintendo had anything to do with their release, yes they had advertisements and hype, but so did MS they had competition in THAT area... but otherwise in the actual hardware... no it was not competition ;)

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

jangojay

That may have been the case if it released at the same time as the 360 WITH every capability it currently employs AS WELL AS its current price point structure, however, we all know that HAD Sony released with the 360, Blu-Ray would NOT be a part of it, and as such, the PS3's greatest selling point would not exist on the system, so the odds on the PS3 "blowing xbox outta the water" is highly unlikely given the obvious fact that Sony wasn't releasing the PS3 simultaneous with the 360 due to Blu-Ray compatibility issues.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"]That's so unbelievably off-topic, Darkspineslayer.dsmccracken

the TC's point was PS3 and Wii already influenced the X360's sales even in it's first year, but ifthe reason for the lackluster sales were indeed the games, then that proves that there was indeed NO outside influence.

How does a competitor making mistakes make it cease to be a competition? Like I said earlier, the PS3's bluray playermay have been stupidity or genius, but no one would argue that it hasn't informed the competitive landscape. If Coke screws up (e.g. the 80s New Coke fiasco), you're saying that this is not part of the competition with Pepsi? To borrow from the world of sports (ironically since I've chided against that in this very thread), a blown catch by Moss is still a part of the competition even if not forced by the opponent, not some extraneous non-related event. The mistakes a competitor makes affect the outcome of a competition (in war/sports/business/ or anything) at LEAST as much as what the opponent does right.

that was not my point, if there was no outside influence, they had NOTHING to do with the outside world. for instance, in our world, we know that there are a lot of stuff outside our galaxy, but since they don't have any effect on us, we don't even care about the aliens next door now do we? ;)

i just want to make one point clear: the competition between Sony, MS, and Nintendo is very different from the competition between the PS3, 360, and the Wii. think about this from that point of view, i hope you'll see my point then :)

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

gamer620

That may have been the case if it released at the same time as the 360 WITH every capability it currently employs AS WELL AS its current price point structure, however, we all know that HAD Sony released with the 360, Blu-Ray would NOT be a part of it, and as such, the PS3's greatest selling point would not exist on the system, so the odds on the PS3 "blowing xbox outta the water" is highly unlikely given the obvious fact that Sony wasn't releasing the PS3 simultaneous with the 360 due to Blu-Ray compatibility issues.

[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

what on earth are you talking about? the 360 having a year head start resulted these four points:

1. more titles.

2. better understanding of the hardware.

3. more sales from CASUAL gamers who don't care about PS3 or X360 as long as it's" cool"

4. higher attach rate than either next gen console.

also, by your logic the Dreamcast was in war with the nintendo gamecube ever since it's release. And that is, without a single shred of doubt, NOT true.The fact that there were die hard fans holding off buying a console is NOT a lost sale due to compitition, it's a lost sale due to LACK OF ATTRACTION. the only reason why they didn't get that sale is because they DIDN'T attract the customer enough to get that sale they are after, this is NOT the compitition's fault, it's MS's.

so in the end, the X360 has had a year without any compition, there weren't any games OUTSIDE of the console to go out, there were no other options, there were NO competition to deal with anyway, and that has helped them greatly.

nintendo-4life

Sigh... this LACK OF ATTRACTION you speak of... finding the offering of the 360 unattractive, finding what the PS3 or Wii has promised more attractive, and buying the competitors' offerings instead, this is not competition? I think you are confusing the uses of the word competition in common usage. "I had no interest in the 360, it was never even a competition in my head" is not the same as what competition means in the business sense. Two companies marketing competing products that serve the same use, that is competition.

I don't know why you are talking about "fault." MS's fault, the competition's fault. Fault doesn't inform competition. If MS lost a sale due to something that was their fault, that fault is PART OF WHAT DECIDES THE COMPETITION. Bluray may have been a mistake or a stroke of genius, but it is certainly part of the competitive landscape.

To quote you, the 360 has had a year without any competition (and I am only interested in same-gen competition, not the PS2), so all the gamers who love Sony and held off to buy the PS3 did not do so because they chose one competitors offering over anothers? If this is not what the bloody dictionary definition of competition (or more like the result ofcompetition)is, I must be in Bizarro land.

lack of attraction definitly has nothing to do with competition. for instance, many people thought the X360's launch titles.. or even the entire 2006 line up wasn't good enough, and thus thought that the console was not worth buying. now tell me, these people weren't wowed by the 360, so why would they buy it? the fact that there are more consoles on the way is irrelevent if the consumer didn't see the system as worthy to begin with.

competition resulted the head start, to that extent you are right, but if there was competition from beforethe release of the actual consoles .. then why did the X360 sales and software exclusivity go down when the actual consoles released?

PS. please don't sigh, it's rude and unpleasant, if you're looking for an argument i gave you one, if you don't like, then tell me why, but sighing is not only irrelevent, it puts you ona lower level than you actually are.

You may be right that MS is at fault for not capitalizing on the head start, and not Sony or Nintendo. However, competition as an act or series actions and reactions is not dependent on who's to blame. I may be at fault for an accident. You might be at fault. It might have been neither, and caused by a faulty traffic light, or weather, but it doesn't mean there was no accident.

The 360's sales and exclusives plumeted, not because there was finally competition upon the launch of the PS3/Wii, but because those launches racheted up/intensified the competition. Is this the divide? That the competition was not and could not be "full-on" until the PS3 and the Wii were out? Well, if this is what we're bickering over, let it be done, as that is self-evident. The competition was not as intense (how could it be?) until all 3 were on shelves... and yes, the PC too Nerdman.

As for those who didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, let me build a what-if scenario. If by act of magic genie, the competition did not exist for MS. They invented videogaming, there was no PS1/2/3, no NES/SNES/Wii, no... well, you get the idea. Would anyone argue that many more people (and in that 1st year) would own a 360, with nothing else to choose from and no possibility of there ever being another choice? Some might still refuse b/c of the RROD, but when you say competition is irrelevant if people didn't see the 360 as worthy to begin with, would you deny that this might be changed if there was nothing to compare it against or an alternative to hope for? Regardless, you surely don't think that this applies to every single last consumer who passed on the 360, do you? Because I only need 1, one guy in Iowa somewhere, to be right. Only one.

aaaaaaaaaanyway...

That accident accured because ofa reason.. you might be right, it might not be anyone's fault... actually scratch that, there's someone, at least one person, who's to blame if any accident occured, if it was the weather, the drivers should have been driving more carefully, if it was a faulty traffic light then the person who allowed this accident to occur is to blame, of course it's not directly, but if there were no mistakes, there shouldn't be an accident. However in this particular case, MS is definitely to blame on the lousy sales they have been producing. NOT sony or nintendo, it's clear as day, they didn't do anything to attract the japnese market, only the american market, and that's just one example.

The rules and logicthat magic genie applied were accurate but sadly.... a magic genie does not really play a role here now does it? let me elaborate: of course we are talking about competition between X360 and PS3 & Wii, but the ultimate competition, between the companies goes way back. MS, Ninty ,and Sony have had a fight before correct? so when a gamer saw the X360, he didn't even have the PS3 OR wii in mind, he had the last gen's standards. So he's not comparing X360 to any other console, he's comparing it to the standards, i know i have.

i'm not saying that what you're saying isn't possible, i know it is and i know that it was the case on hundreds of people..... but is it really big enough to be called a competition? is it valid enough? i would say no, because of the four points i have listed above completely blows away this small group creating the competition in the first place.

............ did that make sense? :?

That competition (Microsoft's MSX vs. NES in Japan, Microsoft vs. Sony last gen, Sony and Nintendo's proposed callaboration etc) magnifies the current competition. From the perspective of MS, Sony, and Nintendo, the competition between these SPECIFIC systems predates the release of all three of them, and their current general competition began last generation. Also, marketing and advertising (which are not only competition, but were expressly produced in a competitive manner) preceded the release of all three systems as well.You're logic and assertions are relatively sound and certainly within reason, but they are rather obtuse.

i get what you and the TC were trying to say and i do admit i have not studied economics as you obviously have (but i will next semester :P), but right now i cannot agree with you at all. sorry, i'm still not convinced :)

To be fair, I saw where you were going with it from the beginning, and like I said before, your logic is sound (I also noticed that I incorrectly used "You're." I apologize). Anyway, my reasoning behind calling the logic obtuse (and I apologize again, because that was a little absolute, and it was not meant to be expressed as such), is related to your "four points" and your assumption that they preclude competition, either direct or indirect, and also refers to your statements concerning the "lack of attraction." Furthermore, I recognize(d) your position as obtuse because it focuses primarily on the consumer, while the consumer is only one factor in this competitive market. You also refer to the Xbox's "head-start." While both DM and I acknowledge that the 360 did have a "head-start." This is not, nor was it ever the point of contention. The "head-start" is only relevant in considering its diminished impact due to what I consider indirect competition - what DM considers direct competition. I also do not believe anyone was stating that they did not have an upper-hand. Even if we can agree that competition existed prior to the release of the PS3 and Wii, no intelligent person would deny that MS had the upper-hand. Also, in your most recent post, the personalization of the situation is obtuse as well. The analogy just isn't succinct. This is economics, not a fist fight. Likewise, as I've stated before, the reaction of or choices made by the consumer does not preclude the possible existence of pre-release competition. Even if there wasn't a single person who chose to wait, the competition still existed. Furthermore, the "mistakes" MS might have made are of little consequence when considering the existence of competition. A portion of lost sales could be attributed to MS making what you generally refer to as "mistakes" (what are they?), but this does not invalidate the assertion that many more possible yet unrealized sales were lost due to, once again, what I consider indirect competition. I apologize if this response sounds disjointed, but this is because I'm attempting to differentiate between the points discussed prior to Zim's full involvement in the discussion and after his/her contributions.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]

[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"]That's so unbelievably off-topic, Darkspineslayer.nintendo-4life

the TC's point was PS3 and Wii already influenced the X360's sales even in it's first year, but ifthe reason for the lackluster sales were indeed the games, then that proves that there was indeed NO outside influence.

How does a competitor making mistakes make it cease to be a competition? Like I said earlier, the PS3's bluray playermay have been stupidity or genius, but no one would argue that it hasn't informed the competitive landscape. If Coke screws up (e.g. the 80s New Coke fiasco), you're saying that this is not part of the competition with Pepsi? To borrow from the world of sports (ironically since I've chided against that in this very thread), a blown catch by Moss is still a part of the competition even if not forced by the opponent, not some extraneous non-related event. The mistakes a competitor makes affect the outcome of a competition (in war/sports/business/ or anything) at LEAST as much as what the opponent does right.

that was not my point, if there was no outside influence, they had NOTHING to do with the outside world. for instance, in our world, we know that there are a lot of stuff outside our galaxy, but since they don't have any effect on us, we don't even care about the aliens next door now do we? ;)

i just want to make one point clear: the competition between Sony, MS, and Nintendo is very different from the competition between the PS3, 360, and the Wii. think about this from that point of view, i hope you'll see my point then :)

I don't know about that... if we were talking about Sony and Hitachi and Toshiba, maybe. But Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo don't compete in any other product category except for gaming, so that effectively means the competition between company or product is the same thing. Unless you're talking abouta human resources battle for ad reps or accountants...