There is an absolutely fascinating discussion on Newsweek's Level Up about the status of the current round in the console wars. The conversation is ignited by the recent sales data which shows some interesting things such as this comparison (omitting portables and last gen hardware for the time being):
1. Wii - 360,000 units
2. XBox 360 - 174,000 units
3. Playstation 3 - 82,000 units
It's worth noting that the Wii outsold the 360 by more than 2:1 and likewise the 360 outsold the PS3 by more than 2:1 which means the Wii is destroying the PS3 at a rate in excess of four units to one. And while it appears the 360 is killing the PS3, the conversation includes several points which highlight that if that is true, Microsoft is killing Sony softly.
By all accounts the XBox 360 ought to be annihilating the PS3 because all the reasons people point to as causes for the Playstation's lackluster sales are pretty much addressed by the current state of the 360: Lower price, wealth of AAA titles, lack of direct competition with the previous gen's console and a fairly certain short term future as far as anticipated titles go. So why the relatively lackluster system-to-system comparison? Isn't it obvious that the 360 is the way to go?
I think there are a couple of factors that N'Gai Croal and Geoff Keighley overlook regarding the 360's comparatively slow adoption rate. The first one is that the graphical difference between Xbox 1 and the 360 isn't as dramatic as the jump from Playstation 1 to PS2. Compare even a late gen title on PS1 (Parasite Eve, perhaps) with an early PS2 title (Ico) and the difference is pretty impressive. I'm a fairly early adopter when it comes to video games because I don't like getting too far behind the curve on the sweet new games since too much backlog eventually overwhelms me and I end up issing titles I really wanted to play, but I could easily have waited another six months or even until Halo 3 before upgrading my XBox 1 to a 360. It's true that once you see what next gen consoles can do the improvements are there, but outside observers may have a harder time justifying what seems like an incremental upgrade. Compare the screenshots for this 360 game with this XBox 1 title; other than some sharpness, which may be attributed to the screencap method for all we know, they look similar.
Another factor may simply be that MS has kind of a bad reputation with the kinds of people Croal and Keighley call hardcore gamers. At the very least a lot of very technically savvy people aren't the biggest MS fans and I suspect there is plenty of overlap between the groups. I've heard more than a few people say they have no interest in whatever MS is selling as far as consoles go; it's difficult to prove one way or the other but one has to at least consider what the company's reputation does for their sales--or sales potential. One could point out that Microsoft's stuff does continue to sell, but the argument could also be made that part of that is easily attributed to them riding the long waves of past successes. Since about the late 90s MS has seemed to be kind of a day late and a dollar short: Zune vs. iPod, XBox vs. Playstation, perhaps even Vista vs. OS X (although obviously not in total sales for that last example). I wouldn't go so far as to say the XBox isn't a success because it's made by Microsoft, but I might suggest that it will have a hard time getting anywhere near the mass acceptance the PS2 did because of who they are.
And finally, it could be that for as much as people pick on the PS3's price, the XBox misses the pricing sweet spot as well. I think a huge part of the problem is that the XBox that could most fit into the average gamer's budget is widely perceived as being useless or at best incomplete. I know for a fact that was my biggest stumbling block: One of my favorite features of the original XBox was the hard drive and I wasn't about to step backwards into a memory-card based system just to get a small horsepower upgrade. It wasn't until GameStop's XBox trade-in promotion basically eliminated the cost of the hard drive that I felt comfortable enough to buy a 360. I think MS is on the right track by offering a $299 system, but they need to realize that no one wants it without the hard drive, especially when a separately purchased drive pushes the total cost of the unit directly into the range of the premium bundle. Simply having a SKU at the right price isn't enough, that SKU has to represent a product people are really willing to buy. In the summer months when these things are being bought by their eventual owners (versus holiday time when the money is coming from confused folks with a loved one who happens to be a gamer), you can't count on a lot of "whoops" sales where a clueless buyer grabbed the cheaper system just because it was without really understanding why.
The other thing that stood out to me was the seemingly casual dismissal of the impact Halo 3 and GTA IV might have on hardware sales. Croal and Keighley use Gears of War as an example of how a hit title may not drive console sales significantly but I think that overlooks two things: 1) Gears was heavily hyped but ultimately it represented an unproven, brand new IP. People who already owned an XBox 360 were probably hyped about it because it was a great showpiece for their system, but I don't know that even the great reviews it got made it seem worth $460 to check out (console + game). 2) Halo 3 and GTA IV are feverishly anticipated titles following up gigantic successes on last gen consoles. As long as San Andreas and Halo 2 are still the latest and greatest for those franchises, hardcore fans of those series may not find themselves compelled to upgrade until a sequel hits stores that they have no access to. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Halo and GTA will follow GoW into hardware sales disappointment.
