Did you read the OP?Whaaat i though xbone was at 35. Damn 29 mil thats damn low. Oh my Nintendo will overtake Xbox next year if they keep selling at this rate.
Did you read the OP?Whaaat i though xbone was at 35. Damn 29 mil thats damn low. Oh my Nintendo will overtake Xbox next year if they keep selling at this rate.
Actually, MS most likely would be VERY happy to have the 2nd hand console getting a new owner. Because the selling of a new console is low margin anyway, so it is more important that someone end up becoming part of the ecosystem via lower price of entry. Fundamentally the actual profit from selling a new console to someone is minuscule compared to the potential software sales and subscriptions.Lol a low standard that one is. So you're saying that they rather people sell them than keep them? You know that is not true and that is the point I was trying to make
Actually, MS most likely would be VERY happy to have the 2nd hand console getting a new owner. Because the selling of a new console is low margin anyway, so it is more important that someone end up becoming part of the ecosystem via lower price of entry. Fundamentally the actual profit from selling a new console to someone is minuscule compared to the potential software sales and subscriptions.
This is why I argued previously that Sony would discontinue the PS4 Pro once PS5 is released. There would be enough PS4 Pro in the 2nd hand market that Sony doesn't need to make any more, and can focus on the PS5 production.
Oh so from what i understand thats sold through numbers not total sales?
Xbox already passed 35 million and EA's numbers are not representative of the global installed base.Oh so from what i understand thats sold through numbers not total sales?
This is where the "engagement" argument comes in.They would rather much prefer than the new owners buy the console they want from them new, though. Also, someone that can't afford a new console, which MS sells at a very discounted price normally, is not what you'd say a "prime" costumer, and probably just wants it to play Fortnite for free :P
They would rather much prefer than the new owners buy the console they want from them new, though. Also, someone that can't afford a new console, which MS sells at a very discounted price normally, is not what you'd say a "prime" costumer, and probably just wants it to play Fortnite for free.( Although they can't because you have to pay to play Fortnite on the Xbox XD)
Ok, but what do they represent?Xbox already passed 35 million and EA's numbers are not representative of the global installed base.
ZhugeX said:I'm not sure what the reason is for the discrepancy with EA's estimates.
It could be it excludes Pro/One X numbers.
It could be that EA excludes a territory like Japan (they used to do this last generation)
It could be that EA estimates PS4 at a lower number. (Which would be weird given Sony release the official numbers)
It could be that installed base =/= sell through in EA's eyes. So replacement consoles sold wouldn't count and only people actively using consoles would count?
EA's estimates aren't wrong. I'm just fairly certain one of the above things is true.
Ultimately what we do know is PS4 sell through was 73.6m at the end of 2017. Xbox One is less than half of that total which shows the big gap between the two in terms of sales. But that's something that has been known for a long time.
You couldn't be more wrong and this makes it clear that you don't understand this business.In any case it's not MS is happy that some people are selling their old SKU, far from it., because they don't see a dime. They rather people keep it and new owners buy a new one from them, not a used one from somebody else
No I think you missed my point. I'm not arguing about what information Microsoft should or shouldn't be releasing. What I'm saying is that console sales (whilst important) don't tell the whole story. We know that, and it's why engagement is a useful measure. Engagement is the end-game, console sales are a major part of getting there. Microsoft's publicly announced numbers are irrelevant as they'll share far more detail on them with their partners under NDA.
Did you actually read my post that you just quoted?How can consumers engage if there are no point of access sold (consoles/units)? Unit sales are extremely important.
Every company attempts to create an ecosystem (XBL, PS , iOS, Android, etc) for market penetration and profitability. Xbox cannot achieve this unless Xbox consoles are sold.
Is Xbox broke? Hell naw. However, its competition is just destroying them. Which is why Spencer & Co. choose not to disclose the unit sales.
Of course they would prefer someone buying new but between someone only willing to buy second hand or nothing... Second hand is the best option.
I mean people buying second hand consoles are not that uncommon...
You couldn't be more wrong and this makes it clear that you don't understand this business.
The X was sold at a loss at launch, and on both PS4 and XBO console hardware, the profit margins are microscopic. The platform holders make their profits on 1) physical game licensing fees, 2) accessories, 3) digital store sales, and 4) subscription services.
So they'd absolutely love someone to sell their old console to someone else. The console hardware is nothing but a trojan horse.
This is where the "engagement" argument comes in.
You see, you argue that a customer who doesn't want to spend a lot of money in gaming is less valuable as a customer. But the reverse argument is that such a customer has the potential of changing his or her spending habits and thus diverting expendable income into Xbox in the future. A customer who is already spending all the money he has to spare in Xbox, is not going be able to offer more than what he has. But a new customer, low engagement he might be, has potential for adding to the money pool.
Trying to be selective and picky about who MS should get money from, is not a way to run a business. If you want MS to have less customers, then fine. But I don't think MS agrees with you.
It was a PSN subscription and a game.Personal attacks now I see? I know the PS4 was sold at a loss, which people has estimated to be around 60$.
Firstly, I think you're being a little over-sensitive. But I'm pleased to see in your last sentence that you acknowledge your failings, something that I don't see often on here. You should be proud :)Personal attacks now I see? I know the PS4 was sold at a loss, which people has estimated to be around 60$.
But that was in 2013, my friend. We are in 2018. 5 years later the price of materials has gone down, so they're are not selling them at a loss now. See the difference?
I definitelly see who doesn't understand the bussines from the 2 of us, if that is any help...
How do you know? You also analyst like Zhuge? What makes you better than Zhuge ? Why we should trust you over Zhuge?
No offence just curious.
Firstly, I think you're being a little over-sensitive. But I'm pleased to see in your last sentence that you acknowledge your failings, something that I don't see often on here. You should be proud :)
With regards to your other comments, I didn't say the PS4 is being sold at a loss, I said the margins are microscopic, which they are. You do realise there have been several price cuts since launch too? They make far more money from physical game licensing fees, accessories, digital store sales and subscriptions. How are they going to make money from those four key elements, if your console is sat doing nothing in a cupboard? They'd much rather you sold it on to someone who might not be willing to pay the full price for a new console, but will be happy to pick one up second-hand, and then still contribute to the eco-system.
I mean, it's well known that the console market has always used the razor-blade/printer cartridge model.
Yes, they would rather have two people using two consoles, rather than one person using one console and another console in a cupboard. Which is what you were proposing.Still, even if the margins are microscopic, they are not selling the sku's at a loss now, so they rather have people buying new ones from them, than used one from someone else.
I mean, wtf is going on peoples minds that we have to argue this?? Do people really believe that MS prefers that someone buys the console used from someone else's than new from them?
Do you realize how you sound?
I think it's very likely the case that because EA doesn't care about sell-through in Asiatic territories, this installbase figure excludes those sales...because it's just not pertinent to their business. So the calculations for a "29 million Xbox One installbase" are wrong.
It was a PSN subscription and a game.
A few months later hardware already made them money.
Firstly, I think you're being a little over-sensitive. But I'm pleased to see in your last sentence that you acknowledge your failings, something that I don't see often on here. You should be proud :)
With regards to your other comments, I didn't say the PS4 is being sold at a loss, I said the margins are microscopic, which they are. You do realise there have been several price cuts since launch too? They make far more money from physical game licensing fees, accessories, digital store sales and subscriptions. How are they going to make money from those four key elements, if your console is sat doing nothing in a cupboard? They'd much rather you sold it on to someone who might not be willing to pay the full price for a new console, but will be happy to pick one up second-hand, and then still contribute to the eco-system.
I mean, it's well known that the console market has always used the razor-blade/printer cartridge model.
Indeed.There was a very good reason why MS from the start in 2013. wanted "always online,always connected" console.Offline console is more or less useless to them cause they can't make any money from subscriptions and services.
You can still do all of that without requiring hourly online check insThere was a very good reason why MS from the start in 2013. wanted "always online,always connected" console.Offline console is more or less useless to them cause they can't make any money from subscriptions and services.
That's what happens when you rely on two countries for sales. If things slow down in those two countries, as happened from 360 to One, then you are in trouble. Nintendo has a stronger global presence, and Sony has the strongest presence of the three.
Yes, they would rather have two people using two consoles, rather than one person using one console and another console in a cupboard. Which is what you were proposing.