They are launching worldwide, something that no one else has done before. I read one interview where J Allard said that they probably wouldn't have done the worldwide launch if they had known what they were getting into. Whatever the case, and whatever one might say about admitting that after the fact, I think the worldwide launch was gutsy, and that I'd rather have limited supply than no supply at all. If they HAD postponed the launch it wouldn't necessarily have translated to a better box; they were planning on launching in Nov. and as such already had the hardware finalized--significant enhancements would not have been likely. Not to mention they would have taken heat for that as well, and probably from the same people.
Here's how I see the "must sell out" thing:
If I were Microsoft and knew I had limited product supply at launch (and they DO have limited supply; the big reason they are not shipping all at once is because they don't want to sell out and then have no box on the shelves for a time [see URL] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/tc_nm/ltech_mi crosoft_xbox_dc ), I would ship more systems to the stores with the most pre-orders (which is the best way to guarantee a sell-out). Not only does this ensure that I make money faster, but also that the gamers who are most excited about the system will have the best chance of getting it. If there were so many pre-orders that it wasn't an issue, then I would ship more heavily to stores that had the most GAME pre-orders, for about the same reason. If you have a limited supply and a huge demand, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is either to raise the price, or to supply more here and less there according to the degree of demand.
By the way, and in agreement to the post I'm replying to, I don't think that two games for each console is as big as it's being made out to be. If you average things, each costumer will not necessarily need to buy two games. Two games for each console would probably still be a push, but not a huge one; still a pretty strict figure, but not strict enough to make Microsoft evil or whatever. If they have those kinds of pre-orders elsewhere, then why not divert some of the supply to where they will make the most money and please the most eager of the costumers?
In summary, if I were Microsoft, I would probably do the same thing. I'm not an expert; it's just my opinion.
I can't believe I said that in my first/. post. I wonder if I'll be going to Macintosh Hell or Linux Hell... or maybe just an open-source version.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Peter Jackson seems like he's getting into this. In addition to the movie, he is working with Microsoft on two new 360 games, one of which is a Halo game that is "not a game and not a film." http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/unnamedpete rjacksonhaloproject/news.html?sid=6158890
And remember, his Weta Workshop is involved.
They are launching worldwide, something that no one else has done before. I read one interview where J Allard said that they probably wouldn't have done the worldwide launch if they had known what they were getting into. Whatever the case, and whatever one might say about admitting that after the fact, I think the worldwide launch was gutsy, and that I'd rather have limited supply than no supply at all. If they HAD postponed the launch it wouldn't necessarily have translated to a better box; they were planning on launching in Nov. and as such already had the hardware finalized--significant enhancements would not have been likely. Not to mention they would have taken heat for that as well, and probably from the same people.
i crosoft_xbox_dc ), I would ship more systems to the stores with the most pre-orders (which is the best way to guarantee a sell-out). Not only does this ensure that I make money faster, but also that the gamers who are most excited about the system will have the best chance of getting it. If there were so many pre-orders that it wasn't an issue, then I would ship more heavily to stores that had the most GAME pre-orders, for about the same reason. If you have a limited supply and a huge demand, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is either to raise the price, or to supply more here and less there according to the degree of demand.
/. post. I wonder if I'll be going to Macintosh Hell or Linux Hell... or maybe just an open-source version.
Here's how I see the "must sell out" thing:
If I were Microsoft and knew I had limited product supply at launch (and they DO have limited supply; the big reason they are not shipping all at once is because they don't want to sell out and then have no box on the shelves for a time [see URL] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/tc_nm/ltech_m
By the way, and in agreement to the post I'm replying to, I don't think that two games for each console is as big as it's being made out to be. If you average things, each costumer will not necessarily need to buy two games. Two games for each console would probably still be a push, but not a huge one; still a pretty strict figure, but not strict enough to make Microsoft evil or whatever. If they have those kinds of pre-orders elsewhere, then why not divert some of the supply to where they will make the most money and please the most eager of the costumers?
In summary, if I were Microsoft, I would probably do the same thing. I'm not an expert; it's just my opinion.
I can't believe I said that in my first