Xbox 360 'only console to show growth this year' according to Microsoft
By Paul Miller 
posted August 16th 2009 6:41AM
posted August 16th 2009 6:41AM
posted August 16th 2009 6:41AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Tis a good console :)
They ain't really doing better, Nintendo sales dropping was expected their wii was sold out for 2 years straight and now it's slowing down,
PS3 still expensive as hell even though it's the best console around games and solid build wise, online play is free on PS3 too
PS3 will sell a hell much more when the slim get released for 299$ with GT5 will make halo sales looks pathetic, "GT sale twice as much ass halo if you check sales history"
Microsoft need to build Xbox360 with included wireless instead of making us pay 100$ for wireless add on
Drop hard disk price to 50$ instead of the current 150$ add on
Drop the fee for online play 50$ a year and make it free like sony with the PS3
Add blu ray player and give us wireless controller without freaking AA battery this is not 1995 microsoft
Xbox360 have so many hidden fees it's getting silly we need Xbox360 with everything built it for 299$ just like the PS3 soon and many people will be all over it, not doing so will get them slaughtered by sony sooner or later
Of course they would say that, it's their console!
In all due respect, Microsoft has shown some good upgrades this year for their console.
XBOX 360 is still THE most expensive console of them all. Sure, you can get one for $199, but you really NEED the $120. And you need LIVE GOLD to play other folks, $50/year, $250 over 5 years. Which brings you to $569 and I haven't included the wireless card, which you don't need because it has a NIC built in, but that's another $90.
And then, hope and pray to God, the system, with a failure rate of 80%-100%, doesn't RROD or E74's.
Sorry, meant to say, you NEED the $120 hard disk drive kit. My bad.
You guys can rank me down, but try to refute my points. You can't, it's all true.
@xcrunk
OK, I'll bite ...
First off, where does the 5-year Gold plan come from? I don't get that at all. Is that just a number you pulled out of your netherregions to make your "point"? The console hasn't even been out FOUR years yet.
As far as your failure rate, you're not even close. Look here: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-was-as-high-as-68/?biz=1 (Sep 2008). I have two consoles myself - one I bought at launch and one I bought for my kids later. NEITHER have RR'dOD or E74'd. I have plenty of people I know personally that haven't had any problems either, so your (up to) "100%" argument is total crap.
If you did SOME research, you would know you DON'T have to use M$'s adapter to get on the internet wirelessly. A simple Google search will show you that.
Would you like to try again?
@xcrunk
I guess we could start with that 80-100% failure rate?
I think more like 16.4 - 68%, which is naturally for the first few iterations. Of course now it's much less, but you may not know that. In any case, much less than 100%.
Some of us don't need wireless cards. I personally never bought one, and neither has anyone that I know. Once again, anecdotal and meant only as a guide.
If you can't afford 50 dollars a year (note sometimes as low as 30), then yes, it isn't for you. As for me, I don't mind paying $4.17 a month for a service that is still the best in my opinion. Besides, maybe instead of buying that hamburger a month, you can go for a run (;
!,000,000,000^10 isn't very much -____-
Asher Chan: The point is that the $50/year fee adds up over the long run. I know people who've had the X360 for a few years now and they've said they bought it because it was much cheaper than the PS3. Is it really cheaper if they'll have to fork out an extra $100-$200 over the course of of owning a said "cheaper" console? The main criticism of the PS3 is that it's too expensive compared to the X360, so yes the Live fees are significant.
iPhone is in no way a video game console. In order to be a video game console you have to have controllers and offer play on video monitors or television.
XBOX 360 offers the most content of the 3 systems easily, and I do not agree with you that the ARCADE 360 can't be used - thus it isn't the cheapest.
That's not true. My neighbor bought their 10 year old ADHD son an ARCADE for christmas and he still uses it and invites friends over. He saves his games to the included memory card and goes nuts everytime his AA bateries die cause he doesn't have the Play&Charge kit. But he still has fun with it. I have the Elite system and XBOX live (he doesnt have XBL). He still has fun with it though. That tells me its useable.
lol at the xbots who did rate me down , i didn't even say my opinion i only stated facts
@Doc,
I know English isn't your first language, but you need to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
It's a pretty important distinction.
Xbox 360 pricing is cheap, the cheapest of all 3 consoles, as well as the best.
My Xbox 360 cost me £90 brand new from game.
I bought mine in England for £110 with a game, I returned the game for £30 (my friend had just bought it so I used his receipt). My Xbox 360 cost me £90.
It's an arcade model with hdmi (they all have that now) I then went online and saw that i qualified for the hard drive upgrade program. I paid microsoft £12.99 including shipping to get an official hard drive.
I plugged my xbox into the ethernet jack in the wall and I get xbox live Silver for free. Certain games let you play online with silver for free (admittedly hardly any) but gold is cheap.
Total cost of an xbox 360 with hard drive and i can go online - £102.99
Here the wii costs £179 and the PS3 costs £290
The only argument for the ps3 is the blu ray drive but online streaming and download services are negating the purpose of that. I'm not swayed either way by the innane comments of 12 yr olds about how one system has a game the other one doesn't, they largely have the same game selection and the graphics look the same.
I bought the best console for the money, with the most comfortable controller of any system (after the original N64).
So please, stop with the "You have to buy all this kit to get an equivalent product" because it simply isn't true.
These extra fees for the WiFi stuff is just bull, if you want WiFi that's your choice, but you can get cheaper more reliable 360 WiFi adapters, I paid $60 for mine after taxes. Now for the kicker of that WiFi cost... the only point of it is to avoid having to run network cabling, and go and find yourself a hardcore gamer who insists on using WiFi to game across, you won't find one. If your going to be gaming and want a fair chance you hardline it, WiFi is to unpredictable and adds varables to your connections which could lead to a loss which was unneeded.
Also, PSN has a reputation for not being the most reliable network around, why do you think that is? As PS3 fanboys like saying all the time... You get what you pay for.
"Microsoft also points out that the 360 has been the number one platform for third-party sales through the entire year."
Problem is, quality of 360 games has fallen off a cliff, with 2009 being the year of Xbox exclusive shovelware, and poorly performing multiplatform titles.
The PS3 is where it's at these says, and by the tone of this press release, it seems Microsoft know that too....
Why waste $299 on a unreliable and noisy has-been Elite, when you will likely be able to pickup a PS3 for that price (or very close to it) in the next few weeks.
Right now you would have to be a ret ard to buy a 360 Elite, even at $299 (Well, $359 if you want to play online, or $439 if you need to connect wirelessly)..
The only reason they showed any growth this year was because they introduced herbal pills to the assembly line.
We keep hearing from PS3 fanboys "Of course the 360 is selling better, it is cheaper, but wait until tthe price drop, slim, and game X is released for the PS3" where X has been Uncharted, then LBP, then MGS, then KZ, then Resistance, now it is GT a game that was supposed to ship the day the PS3 shipped (I may have the shipping order of those games wrong, and there were 3 or 4 others that were supposed to be system sellers in there).
We also keep hearing how the 360 is not the cheapest, being you must buy Wi-Fi (not true, but let's suppose it is true), you must pay $50 a year for live (not true, but let's suppose it is true), you must pay $200-$300 for a BRD player (not true, but let's suppose it is true), battery and charge kits for the controller (not true, but let's suppose it is true), etc. all to make the 360 equivalent to the PS3.
If people are knowledgeable enough to know that there is a supposed price drop and slim around the corner for the PS3, then people would be knowledgeable enough to know that with these supposed required extras the price of the 360 is greater than the price of the PS3. And with the price of the 360 supposedly higher than the PS3, why does the 360 still consistently sell more than the PS3? It seems like the excuses used for the PS3 not selling as much as the 360, would actually be arguments against the 360 and not the PS3.
So with the lower price of the PS3 vs. the 360 with all the "required" add-ons, the "near 100% failure rate" that many would have you believe, "the power of the C3LL" that many talk about, "people will buy a PS3 even without games" and "people will get second jobs to buy a PS3" as argued by Sony execs, the history of the PS brand (PS2 being the best selling console ever), with all these strikes against the 360 and for the PS3, Wii and 360 are still beating the PS3 quite handily.
to everyone who smacked the 360
if you didnt read the engadget post, ms is dropping the elite down to 299 and getting rid of the premium all together. thats 299 for a black console, wireless controller, headset, hdmi cable, audio cable seperate from hdmi with toslink, 120gb hdds and 6 1 month gold trials.
if you have an arcade or premium or any special editions (i have the halo edition) that came with a 20gb hdd, you can buy a certain 50$ 2.5" hdd from computer store and anyone with a shred of computer intelligence can read a guide to install it.
technically the xbox is still the cheapest because live is completely optional, silver is still awesome and free, you can still chat and get achievements and buy dlc
another thing im not entirely sure about but it seems to me that the ps3 doesnt have dlc.. like fallout 3 on the xbox you can buy all the 5 add ons from xbl, but the ps3 its impossible to addon and anyone with a ps3 copy of fallout 3 will have to pay another 60$ in october when the goty edition comes out
as for bluray and graphics, bluray is completely unnecessary, as the best looking game on any console or system or anything is crysis warhead, which is only available on the pc, looks amazing, and comes on a dvd. if youve seen this game at full graphics you know, but you need a hell of a pc to hold it up. if you want graphics go for pc gaming, sure its expensive to build a pc (building is loads cheaper) but think about it, you do need a pc anyways. the ps3 still isnt as good as a pc could be. but dont forget its easier for the ps3 to be better cuz it came out 2 years later, thats a pretty good advantage
buy an elite and 50$ gold if you wish, 350 for an amzing console with every single thing you need... also 360 has better exclusives, but thats just an opinion (halo halo wars fable gears of way 2 halo odst)
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/05/leaked-back-of-box-chart-shows-xbox-line-winnowing-down-to-arcad/
proof xbox elite down to 299
also wireless is useless pony up 10$ for a 25' ethernet cable its 20x faster anyways
xbox live is still infinitely better
wireless mics awesome
360 controllers never had any problems with disconnecting... unlike the ps3s
ive had an xbox halo edition since it came out in spetember 07, not a single problem at all (except for when i broke my special edition controller by throwing it :( but i fixed it by replacing the insides with a worse color :) ) the xbox is 100% solid stuff, anyone whos looked inside one knows that the entire thing is reinforced with super strong metal, be pretty hard to smash it
netflix is friggin awesome, as well as media center or wmp streaming, games on demand is pretty cool
the only thing that i like on the ps3 is the slot loader... but that has a higher failure rate then others, i hate how it looks like a fridge... a fat ugly piece of junk whether or not its shiny
Let's be honest here, From Ninty's stratospherical height, they can only go down, since they're saturated the market so much that everyone and their dog has two Wiis and all it's peripherals... All of which have a profit, not loss.
Sony, on the other hand, is the middling player in Japan's console market, and everyone who doesn't have one is holding back for the "inevitable" price cut and / or slim (they hope it's inevitable, anyhow :) )
Microsoft is the bottom feeder in Japan, having a couple of great spells when they secured some important games (citation needed :p , but they usually go back down to bottom after a month.
My point? they only way Microsoft can have negative grow in Japan is if they stopped selling X360s... There's not less they can sell without that number being zero.
Hey guess what? I don't have a Wii.
But, at the same time, I don't have any other console.
I'm a PC! xD
"My point? they only way Microsoft can have negative grow in Japan is if they stopped selling X360s"
So basically you're saying as long as MS stays in the business of selling consoles, it will sell them. LOL THANKS FOR THE INSIGHT MAN!
But really I think you missed the point. It's saying it's the only console with growth over last year.
He didn't miss the point - if you're selling 1 console per year, and other people are selling 10 consoles per year, to a market of 50 people, the chances of you showing an increase next year are higher than the other people.
Greatly exaggerated in this example, but the theory is sound. I can't say for sure that this is the reason - it could very well be that Microsoft has something everyone wanted while the other two didn't - but it's possible.
Disclaimer, since I'm sure I'll be attacked: I am completely clueless as to what has happened in the video game industry over the past year. All I'm aware of is what games are available for the consoles I own.
I've tried to reply thrice now... WTF?
Ok, seems to be working again...
@Shinigami: Snap! I'm a Pc too!
@Chibi Chaingun - blackhivemedia.com: Yes, actually, as long as they keep selling them in the foreseeable future, it's highly probable at least one person will but one a month. I may have exageratted *slightly*, but the point remains
@Eric: Thanks :)
this is due to the......fact that......PS3 slim is coming.........people are wanting to spent in the upcoming ps3 slim............people are more smart as they r waiting for new one.
"more smart" indeed
The 3-year warranty has expired. That is why.
HA!
But hey, at least they are optimistic about it. Sony would come out and say: "We are not doing great but the have the best bluray around!"
we all know the wii is doing the best and soon the ps3 will pass the xbox360 in sales. As both consoles are 2 years behind the 360, the ps3 sales numbers.
Wii = 50m
xbox360 = 30m (released 2 years before the other 2 consoles)
ps3 = 23m
dont look so good when u see the real figures
Well I've read multiple sources that claim the attachment rate is the highest for the 360 compared to both Wii and PS3. We all know companies make little if anything on their consoles, it's the attach rate that really counts for publishers, retailers and the manufacturers of the consoles.
That doesn't necessarily mean they're not "doing the best" - just look at attach rates.
The attach rate differences are very negligible now. The difference is less than one game.
November 22, 2005 to November 11, 2006 is two years?
1 year, moron
Everyone on Wall Street knows Ballmer talks nonsense. And the Street punished him after last quarter report!
The xbox 360 is easily the best because of:
- Wide range of high quality games Halo 3 (ODST, Wars etc), Gears of war, splinter cell and many more.
- The xbox live system is easily the best, it's fast easy to use and has a constant way to play multiplayer unlike the other consoles. For those who say well you've got to pay, yes we do pay but you get what you pay for.
- I'v got all three consoles but the xbox 360's controller is the best, ergonomic and well weighted.
- Finally the amount of gamers on xbox live means you'll find a game almost instantly.
Basically the 360 is the best due to the reasons stated above and many more
Glad this is isn't a fact o.o
Cute.
Your "range" is just FPS
Xbox live is filled with idiots (bigots, racists, different-than-me-phobes) . All online services have them, but Live is over flowing with them.
Controller is a matter of preference. I personally enjoy the 360 controller most, but each has their own benefits.
I firmly believe no system is the Best this generation. Each one has its share of problems. The diversity of games is down across all systems. (Compare to the last generations where new genres were created, new franchises blossomed, just new games instead of rehashes and sequels, trilogies, toomuchogies.)
This generation is the Video Game's industry growing pains. Where everyone is growing up and figuring out who they are with mixed results.
It's a good console, but it's got the WORST build quality of all the consoles.
The loud DVD drive is HORRIBLE. The RROD and e74 issues are inexcusable. And the three year warranty guarantees owners will need to purchase a second console, falsely elevating their numbers. It's not all NEW owners, it's a mix of new owners, and customers whose systems have failed and were no longer covered under warranty.
And when Microsoft releases a new form factor, the one that doesn't fail, they will sell another 10 million.
"Your "range" is just FPS"
You're right. Mirror's Edge is a good FPS, so is Guitar Hero, Skate, Eternal Sonta, Fable 2. The Playstation has GREAT games like SOCOM, Killzone, and Haze that TOTALLY have nothing to do with shooting.
"Xbox live is filled with idiots (bigots, racists, different-than-me-phobes) . All online services have them, but Live is over flowing with them."
Apparently, you are new to the internet. The only reason there are no idiots talking smack on PSN is because they are too damn broke to buy a headset after shelling out 550 dollars for a console, two games, and an extra controller.
Want a real game console? Get an SNES, biotch.
Did you just use 'haze' and 'great' in the same sentence without the word 'not?'
"Finally the amount of gamers on xbox live means you'll find a game almost instantly."
Because there is a big difference between 10 and 15 million (approximation) when looking for a game instantly....
Seriously dude i play Battlefield 2 on PC and its like 4 years old (still a beast tho) and just join the same server (32 player) over and over so really all i need is like 100 unique users to still be playing that and i will find a server 'almost instantly'.
seriously? Did NO ONE but me catch lameduck's sarcasm there? Why the down vote?
PS3 has it bonuses sure, but Blu Ray isn't something I worry about when it comes to playing video games. I don't have a problem with multi-disc games. If you're careless enough to lose a disc that's sad.
Xbox360 definitely wins. I have had E74, no it was not covered under warranty. Yeah it's lame to have to pay for repairs users don't directly cause. But it was worth it. These huge flame wars will never end though so I don't know why I bother.
They are all good consoles, even the wii (here comes the down votes on me).
Each has different advantages and problems. The only reason microsoft is winning is because they are good at reaching out to a wide audience instead of one section. Xbox360 is for family, casual gamers, hardcore gamers, new gamers, anyone. Anyone can get into xbox and find at least one game they like, and the online experience is the best.
The Wii: terrible online experience, wooo browser. I have two computers for that. It's based almost entirely around family and group gaming. It's great that its pushing that forward though.
The PS3: It has blu ray, so does my laptop. My laptop also has a better GPU in it and runs games much smoother. But anyways, PS3 has good games, most of which are on 360 too. The graphics aren't any better than 360. 360 wins in some cases IMO. Forgive me if this doesn't entirely make sense and have a good argument I'm running on 48 hours of no sleep. Because of work, girlfriend, and gaming.
The best news for XBox is the Netflix streaming... love it especially with the latest update.
I am sure it helps move some consoles.
Except nobody's going to use it.
When you tale the total amount of consoles sold of the 360 since its launch and compare them to the number of PS3 consoles sold since launch and divide it by the number of months that they have been available at retail, Sony has a higher average number of sales than the 360 does even including the resent months where MS dropped the price on the entry level 360's and even with a 12 month period with no current generation competition.
So what that tells me is MS is selling more systems now, but the system had a very slow start and took a long time to reach the point that its sales were higher per month than the PS3. Where as the PS3 has had more consistent sales from the start, with people buying the console despite the very high price and lack of games etc that everyone always mentions. In the end I don't see how Sony won't sell way more consoles by the end of the consoles lifetime than the MS will. If they have been doing so at a high price point any price cuts / slim model will do nothing but increase their sales same as it has with the 360.
Also, while its not a guarantee of a sale, at some point the people that have not gotten any of the current consoles will do so and people tend to stick with the same brand out of loyalty which means that with 34 million in sales the 360 has already sold way more than there were xbox units. At 25 million the PS3 has barely put a dent in the installed base of PS2 users that has something along the lines of 140 million units and still selling strong. Heck it actually still outsells the PS3 and until recent months the 360 too.
We don't have any current generation systems in our house but we are planning on getting one and since I don't play it (computer gamer) i gave my wife and son (14) the choice of what system they wanted and they chose the PS3. We already have a Blue-Ray player in the living room and my computer in the den so that was a non-issue for us. Most of the games they prefer are on Sony consoles not the 360 we have just been holding off on replacing one of our three PS2's (slims) until the platform matured more and the games we would be buying it for came out. (final fantasy, kingdom hearts, ratchet and clank, GoW, etc )
The Xbox's sale rate is currently greater than that of the PS3. This despite it being over a year older.
That's something i simply don't understand... what makes you, and sony to believe that all the current ps2 users won't buy a xbox 360? i had a ps2 and bought a 360 (because it's better for me since all my friends also have one etc...). Sony constantly says "ooh yeah we are the best because our system is better in the long run and we've got tons of ps2 users that will become ps3 users..." WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THAT? it's note like they are offering a 50$ discount for ps2 users that buy a ps3 or something like that...
It will be interesting to see how the microsoft's natal and the ps3 eye control (or whatever it will be called) will do and how will nintendo react ( vitality sensor. lol). Because in my opinion these controlers will play a big role in deciding who stays in second place in this console war (if not first place).