XBOX 360 was a DISASTER to Microsoft

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/95806/95806.html?Ad=1

Maybe there will be no Xbox 3rd.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/95806/95806.html?Ad=1

Maybe there will be no Xbox 3rd.

UR_BEST_FRIEND

good post i find that 360 is a good somthing but has nothing really that new about it so it really does not change gaming at all unlike ps3 and wiideadmeat59

I can see the Wii but how in the hell is the PS3 changing gaming?

[QUOTE="deadmeat59"]good post i find that 360 is a good somthing but has nothing really that new about it so it really does not change gaming at all unlike ps3 and wiiEvo310whp

I can see the Wii but how in the hell is the PS3 changing gaming?

Although not as advanced, as the Wii's the PS3's Sixaxis has Motion Control Capabilities like the Wii, a New Eyetoy for PS3 is on the horizon's, Blu-Ray opens up new doors for developers, The Folding Experiment allows PS3 users to help save lives, and also Sony's Online HOME looks revolutionary. Who knows, what he meant, just throwing out what he may have meant. 

"Gaming has been a disastrous endeavor for Microsoft, particularly from an investment perspective," Ehrenberg reported in a recent blog posting. "After five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around."

rofl, awesome

don't worry, there will be a xbox 3danneswegman

Probably, but the Xbox Brand needs to make money within it's first decade to convince the shareholders it was all worthwile. So far, we are in year 6, no money has been made overall, just lot's and lot's of losses.

Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.braydee1234

That's just some random stat M$ brags about, it wasn't an issue before M$ made it an issue.

It sure helped M$ that Backwards Compatibility wasn't a focas, or those numbers would be different.

Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.braydee1234

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure.  There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster.  We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes.  I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO.  We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.darthogre

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

don't worry, there will be a xbox 3danneswegman

that's what i was worried about

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.darthogre

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure.  There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster.  We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes.  I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO.  We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

Of course having a high attachment rate for games is bad, that means you are catering to the same group of people and the variety in you library is nill.  Look at GTA Vice City the highest grossing PS2 game and its attachment was 12% of the PS2 owners while SSB and Halo2 had an attachment of around 33%.  Variety is what wins console wars, if everyone buys the same game then you obviously arent catering to a broad enough audience.

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.Javy03

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure. There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster. We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes. I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO. We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

Of course having a high attachment rate for games is bad, that means you are catering to the same group of people and the variety in you library is nill. Look at GTA Vice City the highest grossing PS2 game and its attachment was 12% of the PS2 owners while SSB and Halo2 had an attachment of around 33%. Variety is what wins console wars, if everyone buys the same game then you obviously arent catering to a broad enough audience.

What MS mean by a high attachment rate, is that Consumers are buying more games for their console than ever before. 

This is also the same tool who claimed microsoft abandoned Windows XP, when it later turned out the update he was whining so much about not existing was going to be released this year, and it turns out microsoft are still updating and supporting their products as far back as '98.

In other words, i could care less what he has to say. 

good post i find that 360 is a good somthing but has nothing really that new about it so it really does not change gaming at all unlike ps3 and wiideadmeat59

PS3 changes it... how? I hope you're not referring to the tilt, because that's pretty much the only thing "new" about it... 

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.darthogre

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure.  There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster.  We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes.  I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO.  We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

I don't even know where to start on this. Your points are so grossly inaccurate, it may not need addressing.

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.musicalmac

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure.  There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster.  We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes.  I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO.  We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

I don't even know where to start on this. Your points are so grossly inaccurate, it may not need addressing.

please address them

One thing the fanboys seem to be glossing over is the part where he says the Xbox 360 is clearly the best system for gamers currently available....Ninja-Vox

so he's not good enough to listen to when he says something you don't agree with but when he says something you agree with it gospel got ya

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.musicalmac

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure.  There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster.  We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes.  I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO.  We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

I don't even know where to start on this. Your points are so grossly inaccurate, it may not need addressing.

????

lol, so I take it you think Xbox was huge success.  Maybe you should inform Microsoft because they dropped the original Xbox faster than a SOE fanboy posting the crappy videos of Halo 3.  Or are you taking issue with the fact I said X360 isn't a failure at this point....what do you think it is or something?

Or do you take issue with high attach rate being bad?  That was not my opinion, I just said I read a very instresting report that said historically attach rates being high were bad.  That doesn't mean X360 is bad, I'm just saying the report thinks that doesn't bold well for X360 as long as it has high attach rates.

Either way I'm confused how I can be inaccurate because Microsoft has already admitted Xbox was a huge disappointment and didnt challange PS2 ever.

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.Javy03

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure.  There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster.  We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes.  I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO.  We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

Of course having a high attachment rate for games is bad, that means you are catering to the same group of people and the variety in you library is nill.  Look at GTA Vice City the highest grossing PS2 game and its attachment was 12% of the PS2 owners while SSB and Halo2 had an attachment of around 33%.  Variety is what wins console wars, if everyone buys the same game then you obviously arent catering to a broad enough audience.

attachment rate is how many games one person buys for their system, not how many people buy the same game. that would be a percentage of people who own a system buying the same game, not an attachment rate.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]One thing the fanboys seem to be glossing over is the part where he says the Xbox 360 is clearly the best system for gamers currently available....neojackazz

so he's not good enough to listen to when he says something you don't agree with but when he says something you agree with it gospel got ya

I dont recall saying that at all. :| Grow up, eh? I was simply pointing out the fact that fanboys take choice quotes out of this like "it's a DISASTER" etc, when all of this refers to microsoft making money. None of them seem man enough to quote this man saying it's by far the best system.

????

lol, so I take it you think Xbox was huge success.  Maybe you should inform Microsoft because they dropped the original Xbox faster than a SOE fanboy posting the crappy videos of Halo 3.  Or are you taking issue with the fact I said X360 isn't a failure at this point....what do you think it is or something?

Or do you take issue with high attach rate being bad?  That was not my opinion, I just said I read a very instresting report that said historically attach rates being high were bad.  That doesn't mean X360 is bad, I'm just saying the report thinks that doesn't bold well for X360 as long as it has high attach rates.

Either way I'm confused how I can be inaccurate because Microsoft has already admitted Xbox was a huge disappointment and didnt challange PS2 ever.

darthogre

You're quick to put words in my mouth, that's for sure.

The reason I'm not addressing this further is because of many things you may not know (or chose to omit) would hurt your agrument. Going into detail would be a painful process, because it would end with you spouting something even more grossly inaccurate, as you've been known to do historically.

Claiming the original XBOX was a failure is false. You can justify it however you'd like, and I'm sure you will, but statements like that are closed-minded, short-sighted, and ultimately fallacious. And more games sold = higher rate of console failure?

Common. Think first- post second.

????

lol, so I take it you think Xbox was huge success. Maybe you should inform Microsoft because they dropped the original Xbox faster than a SOE fanboy posting the crappy videos of Halo 3. Or are you taking issue with the fact I said X360 isn't a failure at this point....what do you think it is or something?

Or do you take issue with high attach rate being bad? That was not my opinion, I just said I read a very instresting report that said historically attach rates being high were bad. That doesn't mean X360 is bad, I'm just saying the report thinks that doesn't bold well for X360 as long as it has high attach rates.

Either way I'm confused how I can be inaccurate because Microsoft has already admitted Xbox was a huge disappointment and didnt challange PS2 ever.

darthogre

What on earth are you talking about? Attach-rates are the number of games you buy for your console. Are you seriously saying the future "doesn't bold well for the xbox 360" because people are buying lots of games for it? How does that work, exactly? I thought the idea of business was to make money, sell products? Is it not?

And the Xbox being a failure, you say. It was up against a massively hyped Playstation 2 which already had nearly two years of sales under it's belt. It was the first attempt at breaking into the console industry, managed to out-sell Nintendo, the most established member of the industry, as well as break through into the online world and make online gaming a necessity for consoles. If not for xbox live, do you think the PS2 would ever have gone online?

It also had Halo 2 break sales records, on a first-attempt console which managed to garner a big chunk of market share. Failure? To a fanboy, perhaps. And the xbox 360 being a failure? It's been out a year. Early days, dont you think? Microsoft hit their targets for first year sales, so i'd say things are going alright about now.

And still... "high attach rates dont bold well for the 360" :lol: :lol:

This is also the same tool who claimed microsoft abandoned Windows XP, when it later turned out the update he was whining so much about not existing was going to be released this year, and it turns out microsoft are still updating and supporting their products as far back as '98.

In other words, i could care less what he has to say. 

Ninja-Vox

[QUOTE="neojackazz"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]One thing the fanboys seem to be glossing over is the part where he says the Xbox 360 is clearly the best system for gamers currently available....Ninja-Vox

so he's not good enough to listen to when he says something you don't agree with but when he says something you agree with it gospel got ya

I dont recall saying that at all. :| Grow up, eh? I was simply pointing out the fact that fanboys take choice quotes out of this like "it's a DISASTER" etc, when all of this refers to microsoft making money. None of them seem man enough to quote this man saying it's by far the best system.

yet you quote what he has to say about 360 being the best system for games atm (i agree)

he lost all credibility at the 21 billion investred remark...

utter b.s....

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]

This is also the same tool who claimed microsoft abandoned Windows XP, when it later turned out the update he was whining so much about not existing was going to be released this year, and it turns out microsoft are still updating and supporting their products as far back as '98.

In other words, i could care less what he has to say. 

neojackazz

[QUOTE="neojackazz"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]One thing the fanboys seem to be glossing over is the part where he says the Xbox 360 is clearly the best system for gamers currently available....Ninja-Vox

so he's not good enough to listen to when he says something you don't agree with but when he says something you agree with it gospel got ya

I dont recall saying that at all. :| Grow up, eh? I was simply pointing out the fact that fanboys take choice quotes out of this like "it's a DISASTER" etc, when all of this refers to microsoft making money. None of them seem man enough to quote this man saying it's by far the best system.

yet you quote what he has to say about 360 being the best system for games atm (i agree)

Avoid the issue, much?

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

????

lol, so I take it you think Xbox was huge success.  Maybe you should inform Microsoft because they dropped the original Xbox faster than a SOE fanboy posting the crappy videos of Halo 3.  Or are you taking issue with the fact I said X360 isn't a failure at this point....what do you think it is or something?

Or do you take issue with high attach rate being bad?  That was not my opinion, I just said I read a very instresting report that said historically attach rates being high were bad.  That doesn't mean X360 is bad, I'm just saying the report thinks that doesn't bold well for X360 as long as it has high attach rates.

Either way I'm confused how I can be inaccurate because Microsoft has already admitted Xbox was a huge disappointment and didnt challange PS2 ever.

musicalmac

You're quick to put words in my mouth, that's for sure.

The reason I'm not addressing this further is because of many things you may not know (or chose to omit) would hurt your agrument. Going into detail would be a painful process, because it would end with you spouting something even more grossly inaccurate, as you've been known to do historically.

Claiming the original XBOX was a failure is false. You can justify it however you'd like, and I'm sure you will, but statements like that are closed-minded, short-sighted, and ultimately fallacious. And more games sold = higher rate of console failure?

Common. Think first- post second.

Xbox was a failure.  It barely beat GC, what do call the GC?  A mild success?  I'm not even talking in terms of them losing money or what not....I'm strickly speaking from that fact if you look at the user base of PS2 and Xbox, who is the failure.'

Microsoft didn't get into the business to be low 2nd place......I mean it's one thing if they lost a close race, it's another to get manhandled like they did.  How about this, why would they drop Xbox support so quickly?  Why did 3rd party developers drop Xbox support so quickly?  Why does PS2 continue to have support from everyone?  One console grabbed the mass market and the other didn't.  Maybe you want to say that is not failing but I'll bet you Microsoft counted the Xbox as a failure.

X360 is another story.  So far I've only seen good things, as well as bad things for PS3.

Again, why do people keep thinking this is my opinion on high attach rates.  When the X360 was launched and after the first 8 or so months, I read a very informative report that said historically it's bad to have high attach rates.  I was just as confused as it seems some of you are, but that is what it said.  It gave examples of past consoles (maybe one was the dreamcast, I can't remember) that had exactly the same type of attach rates......they all ended up being failed consoles.  PS2 on the other hand supposedly had a very low attach rate, it won last time.  Take that information how you want to, all I'm saying is I read one report that said historically X360 could be in trouble.  Has that panned out like that so far, no.....but only time will tell.

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Microsoft and Sony both understood they would lose cash in the first 2 years. Microsoft also know that Software is going to keep them going for these 2 years. See the highest attachment rate in gaming history for more information.Javy03

I think the article means overall, since Xbox through X360 it has been a failure. There might be something to that since Xbox really did flop.

The post title was misleading though, it should read Gaming division for Microsoft has been a Disaster. We've yet to actually see if X360 will be successful enough to make up for the original Xbox woes. I think they are off to a good start, at least IMO. We'll see what happens when PS3 actually shows up to the fight (right now SOE is still eatting ice cream from PS2 revenue lol)

btw, I read an article that explained why having a high attachment rate was actually bad (historicaly)....it was pretty informative and one reason why I still don't know if X360 is going to sbeat PS3.

Of course having a high attachment rate for games is bad, that means you are catering to the same group of people and the variety in you library is nill. Look at GTA Vice City the highest grossing PS2 game and its attachment was 12% of the PS2 owners while SSB and Halo2 had an attachment of around 33%. Variety is what wins console wars, if everyone buys the same game then you obviously arent catering to a broad enough audience.

Do you know what attachment rate is? its the number of games each console owner has. So 360 owners buy alot of games, and thats a bad thing? 

I don't care if they lose money on it -- doesn't change the fact that it's a great gaming system (coming from an owner of all 3). At least I don't have to dust my 360 off every week and wonder while I'm doing why the hell I bought the thing (im looking at you mr.dusty ps3).

Dreamcast - financial failure, fantastic system. 

PS3 - TOTAL financial failure, to the point that analysts predict it could be the demise of Sony if it doesn't pan out right. Still has some OK games, and potential. 

Xbox was a failure.  It barely beat GC, what do call the GC?  A mild success?  I'm not even talking in terms of them losing money or what not....I'm strickly speaking from that fact if you look at the user base of PS2 and Xbox, who is the failure.'

Microsoft didn't get into the business to be low 2nd place......I mean it's one thing if they lost a close race, it's another to get manhandled like they did.  How about this, why would they drop Xbox support so quickly?  Why did 3rd party developers drop Xbox support so quickly?  Why does PS2 continue to have support from everyone?  One console grabbed the mass market and the other didn't.  Maybe you want to say that is not failing but I'll bet you Microsoft counted the Xbox as a failure.

X360 is another story.  So far I've only seen good things, as well as bad things for PS3.

Again, why do people keep thinking this is my opinion on high attach rates.  When the X360 was launched and after the first 8 or so months, I read a very informative report that said historically it's bad to have high attach rates.  I was just as confused as it seems some of you are, but that is what it said.  It gave examples of past consoles (maybe one was the dreamcast, I can't remember) that had exactly the same type of attach rates......they all ended up being failed consoles.  PS2 on the other hand supposedly had a very low attach rate, it won last time.  Take that information how you want to, all I'm saying is I read one report that said historically X360 could be in trouble.  Has that panned out like that so far, no.....but only time will tell.

darthogre

Looks like I can see into the future. Obvious omissions of the successes of the original XBOX. Even by your own logic you're spouting off ridiculous things. Re-read your own post.

I'll say it again, Think first- post second.