PS4 outsold Xbox One by 166,000 consoles in UK last year

[macrosslover]

I think that will probably be a 1000 to 2000 like model transition.  Probably to improve internal mechanisms and what not.  There's no way they'd make a Kinect less sku this early.

 

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20131120PD210.html

[trooper11]

We've gone through a whole generation of motion based gaming, if developers create compelling games then people would buy Kinect 2 at a later date if not in a bundle. It says a lot about your confidence for a device that you NEED to put it in every box or nothing good will be made for it...

 

I'd say pricing is far more important at the start of a console generation.

Then let MS drop the price while keeping Kinect bundled, everyone wins, except MS in the short term.

I think your ignoring the past here. Add-ons have a very tough road in convincing wide range support from devs when they are sold separately. The first Kinect sold several units, but dev support was sad to say the least. Part of that was the lack of proper hardware in Kinect itself and part of it was a lack of incentive for developers to use it. On the ps3, it was even worse for Move developer support.

I think its just unfair to claim that bundling it means MS has zero confidence in it. Isn't it also possible that they had a lot of confidence in it since they were willing to bundle it and launch $100 more expensive than the ps4? Its integrated far more than Kinect 1 and it can just do things better than the hardware in Kinect 1. MS isn't treating it as some separate piece. Its now a 'checkbox' feature for the Xbox to them.

Maybe MS ends up having to abandon Kinect at some point, but I feel that their best chance of making it an integrated feature of the Xbox platform is to show every developer that they are serious about supporting it by bundling it with the console.

[torrentthief]

I think that will probably be a 1000 to 2000 like model transition.  Probably to improve internal mechanisms and what not.  There's no way they'd make a Kinect less sku this early.

microsoft has backtracked on loads of things since they first announced the console due to seeing much lower pre-orders than ps4. It is very apparent that ps4 is selling way more consoles so microsoft may do this to compete, best to do it now than in 18 months time.

[trooper11]

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20131120PD210.html

Ah ok, yeah that does sound like a new revision. These revision plans are made pretty far in advance, so I kind of doubt they had decided months ago to start producing a Kinect-less sku for the 1st or 2nd Qrt of 2014.

[trooper11]

microsoft has backtracked on loads of things since they first announced the console due to seeing much lower pre-orders than ps4. It is very apparent that ps4 is selling way more consoles so microsoft may do this to compete, best to do it now than in 18 months time.

Well since the ps4 is available in 40+ regions while the X1 is only in 13, I think MS' priority might be to release in more regions than trying to decide if they need to leave Kinect out.

Sales worldwide are going to go Sony's way as long as they are in more regions.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Then let MS drop the price while keeping Kinect bundled, everyone wins, except MS in the short term.

I think your ignoring the past here. Add-ons have a very tough road in convincing wide range support from devs when they are sold separately. The first Kinect sold several units, but dev support was sad to say the least. Part of that was the lack of proper hardware in Kinect itself and part of it was a lack of incentive for developers to use it. On the ps3, it was even worse for Move developer support.

I think its just unfair to claim that bundling it means MS has zero confidence in it. Isn't it also possible that they had a lot of confidence in it since they were willing to bundle it and launch $100 more expensive than the ps4? Its integrated far more than Kinect 1 and it can just do things better than the hardware in Kinect 1. MS isn't treating it as some separate piece. Its now a 'checkbox' feature for the Xbox to them.

Maybe MS ends up having to abandon Kinect at some point, but I feel that their best chance of making it an integrated feature of the Xbox platform is to show every developer that they are serious about supporting it by bundling it with the console.

 

Hasn't Kinect sold like 25 million units? You'd have to be a right snobby dev to turn up making something for a peripheral that sells that amount.

 

The reality here though is it all comes down to making something that people want, no need to try and hide any of motion gamings flaws behind "well devs aren't making good games due to marketshare". The mindshare of what the consumer wants isn't simply going to change due to something being bundled, it's really just about whether Kinect 2 for most will be a menu navigator/remote, or if the usual dancing/fitness games are going to be more popular this generation.

[Houtei]

Hasn't Kinect sold like 25 million units? You'd have to be a right snobby dev to turn up making something for a peripheral that sells that amount.

 

The reality here though is it all comes down to making something that people want, no need to try and hide any of motion gamings flaws behind "well devs aren't making good games due to marketshare". The mindshare of what the consumer wants isn't simply going to change due to something being bundled, it's really just about whether Kinect 2 for most will be a menu navigator/remote, or if the usual dancing/fitness games are going to be more popular this generation.

The problem is if microsoft didnt bundle it then its teh devs that are forgetting about a big portion of gamers by requiring a device some people dont want and are not going to get for 1 reason or another.  Since its a part of the system versus just a stupid bundle everyone has one and devs dont exclude anyone by adding kinect features and some of these anti kinect people will give it shot since they have it and might find they like it when otherwise they just wouldnt of even got the game or a kinect. Microsoft believes in kinect and this is the way it needs to be done to get more people believing in it.   This way microsoft is the "bad guy".

[SnoopZ]

We've gone through a whole generation of motion based gaming, if developers create compelling games then people would buy Kinect 2 at a later date if not in a bundle. It says a lot about your confidence for a device that you NEED to put it in every box or nothing good will be made for it...

 

I'd say pricing is far more important at the start of a console generation.

It would be a disaster if they took it out now and produced a cheaper sku, the developers would just stop producing games for it when we can always count on it now, so it is best to keep it in my opinion.

 

Besides Kinect isn't just about games on the Xbox One, i mean i never use it with games at the moment but i still use it alot for other things.

[Showan]

The problem there is that suddenly you have a situation where some users have the device and some don't. Now developers have even less reason to make certain features standard.So while your right that it offers users a choice, it also drastically reduces the chances of users seeing proper content that is tailored to using various Kinect features properly. And I don't mean full on Kinect only games. For some reason you guys have this idea that the only way Kinect is justified is via Kinect-only titles. Maybe last gen that was true, but not now thanks to its system level integration.  Unfortunately, that has not helped WiiU sales. The thing about Kinect is that it offers more than just possible gaming features. Now dismiss those features all you like, but reality can't be ignored here. Your exactly right that the remote play via the wiiu gamepad is a great feature, nothing is taking away from that.Just more personal opinions mixing in with real facts I suppose.

Kinect has to stay in every box. But Microsoft has to be the FIRST to show why it's a true necessity to the gaming experience. Don't get me wrong I love using it to jump to games, apps, store, settings and such. But I also tried it with the controller and got around ok that way as well. Kinect Sports: Rivals looks like a very fun game (I love the jet ski game demo), but there has to be a Core game, that has heavy Kinect integration (not tacked on at that) Microsoft says they will make $0-$10 bucks or so per Xbox One, I say if they at least dropped $50 (if the situation is looking dire that is) off the One and they lose $40-$50 on it. But a Game purchase and Live Pass eliminates the loss.

Game developers have to find a proper way of letting Kinect seamlessly integrate (heavily integrate at that) into a primarily controller based gamed. I know a lot of people said that repeatedly putting down and picking up the controller, for Kinect parts of games would be annoying. I think Microsoft should make a navigation controller (like the PS Move navi controller) that can simulate feet in a game. That way people can sit and enjoy a core game, that has heavy Kinect features.

A new Sku without Kinect, would send those who didn't want a Kinect, but sucked it up and bought a One anyways into a RAGE like no other.

[Unrealistic]

The TV-in feature would be terrible without the Kinect IR-blaster.

[trooper11]

Hasn't Kinect sold like 25 million units? You'd have to be a right snobby dev to turn up making something for a peripheral that sells that amount.

 

The reality here though is it all comes down to making something that people want, no need to try and hide any of motion gamings flaws behind "well devs aren't making good games due to marketshare". The mindshare of what the consumer wants isn't simply going to change due to something being bundled, it's really just about whether Kinect 2 for most will be a menu navigator/remote, or if the usual dancing/fitness games are going to be more popular this generation.

Your right that it comes down to something people want. But that requires content that interests consumers. Take away Kinect for a second and just look at game consoles in general. They don't sell without compelling software. Same applies to Kinect features. Kinect v1 did sell millions of units, but just look at the software selection to see my point. The Kinect v1 games that sold well were also the best made games. Things like Dance Central and Kinect Sports were easily the best examples of games that made use of motion controls and offered fun games. There were plenty of bad Kinect and Move games and not enough quality ones. As I said before, it wasn't all because of the lack of interest from developers, it was also the hardware itself just not quite being good enough to offer a solid motion gaming experience for a wide range of content.

Also, your ignoring that Kinect means more than motion gaming this gen. Why does it have to be all about that? The fact is, it actually does a whole host of little things that either make using the system in general better, or makes tasks that have been tedious in the past much easier. All of those things are a plus for the system, and anyone using the system can benefit from those features enabled thanks to Kinect.

Don't think about Kinect as a motion gaming peripheral for a moment. Look at how MS is treating it. They probably realize the same thing that most of us realize: making an add on that solely focused on motion gaming is a dead end. They probably would agree that there is not tons of demand for motion gaming content, certainly not enough to support an expensive peripheral like Kinect. Hence the reason the new Kinect is not all alone and its not being marketed as this motion gaming device. Its now an integrated feature of the Xbox and MS is leveraging the hardware in Kinect to offer a range of features which still include motion controlled gaming, but also features for regular games and general system features.

MS has also made it as easy as possible for developers to make use of the Kinect hardware as they wish. Its not about getting full on motion controlled games, its about using maybe just part of the features of Kinect in a game. Using features where they make sense and not shoehorned in there just for the sake of it. Heck, ensuring that everyone has a nice microphone via Kinect is helpful to developers.

In the end, MS must convince consumers that Kinect just makes the system better in various ways and it makes it better to the point of being worth the extra cost. MS will be lowering the cost of the console, no doubt there since both consoles will try to do that over time. The question is how long MS waits to do it. If sales are close enough with Sony, even if Sony is ahead by a certain amount, MS may feel content with their position, content that consumers are responding to their product. Or maybe MS feels they do not want any gap between the two early and decide to cut the price as quickly as possible, even if that means eating a loss thanks tot he bundled Kinect. Who knows what MS is looking at to make their decisions.

[trooper11]

Kinect has to stay in every box. But Microsoft has to be the FIRST to show why it's a true necessity to the gaming experience. Don't get me wrong I love using it to jump to games, apps, store, settings and such. But I also tried it with the controller and got around ok that way as well.

I think Microsoft should make a navigation controller (like the PS Move navi controller) that can simulate feet in a game. That way people can sit and enjoy a core game, that has heavy Kinect features.

Its little things like scanning in codes, auto login with facial recognition, or simply handing the controller to someone else and having the system switch to that person's profile within a game that come to mind as reasons Kinect integration has benefits.

I'm not sure about the navigation controller though. You can already play Kinect games while seated. When I was trying out Rivals, I always played sitting down, no issues with that.

I agree though that its up to MS to demo gaming content that makes use of Kinect in some way. I don't think it needs to be a fully motion controlled game though. The reality is that some people don't want to play motion controlled games. MS can't focus on that aspect of it without alienating those that oppose it. So instead, they need a nice balanced approach. Sure, having those motion controlled games, but don't make too big a deal about them. Make it easy for developers to use only some features of Kinect, even if its just voice commands, where it makes sense. The idea is that Kinect can offer some usage in most games, even if they aren't motion controlled features.

[spenser.d]

Its amusing that so many of you think the Xbox One is selling poorly because its selling less. They're both doing very well. Microsoft doesn't have to change anything.

[Showan]

Its amusing that so many of you think the Xbox One is selling poorly because its selling less. They're both doing very well. Microsoft doesn't have to change anything.

Xbox One is selling very well... People assume that, because they see plenty of them in the store that's it's not doing good. Versus, Microsoft is making sure that the few regions that they did launch in, is well stocked.

[Showan]

Its little things like scanning in codes, auto login with facial recognition, or simply handing the controller to someone else and having the system switch to that person's profile within a game that come to mind as reasons Kinect integration has benefits.I'm not sure about the navigation controller though. You can already play Kinect games while seated. When I was trying out Rivals, I always played sitting down, no issues with that.I agree though that its up to MS to demo gaming content that makes use of Kinect in some way. I don't think it needs to be a fully motion controlled game though. The reality is that some people don't want to play motion controlled games. MS can't focus on that aspect of it without alienating those that oppose it. So instead, they need a nice balanced approach. Sure, having those motion controlled games, but don't make too big a deal about them. Make it easy for developers to use only some features of Kinect, even if its just voice commands, where it makes sense. The idea is that Kinect can offer some usage in most games, even if they aren't motion controlled features.

I think a Metal Gear, or some new franchise (AAA-game) that has heavy Kinect integration would be ideal. Even revisiting the crappy Kinect version of Steel Battalion would be good idea. Or a game that doesn't have a traditional cut scene but rather an all interactive portion when cut scenes would normally be placed. It doesn't have to be full blown motion games or nothing, but I think developers can find a way for controller and motion to co-exist in bigger franchises. I personally think Indies will probably help Kinects image more than the bigger studios will.

[trooper11]

I think a Metal Gear, or some new franchise (AAA-game) that has heavy Kinect integration would be ideal. Even revisiting the crappy Kinect version of Steel Battalion would be good idea. Or a game that doesn't have a traditional cut scene but rather an all interactive portion when cut scenes would normally be placed. It doesn't have to be full blown motion games or nothing, but I think developers can find a way for controller and motion to co-exist in bigger franchises. I personally think Indies will probably help Kinects image more than the bigger studios will.

I agree, Kinect doesn't need purely motion controlled games to become a positive feature for the Xbox.

Again, MS is trying very hard to not push Kinect as its own thing. Just look at the commercials on TV. How many actually mention Kinect by name? Personally I haven't seen one, but if they are out there, it has to be pretty few. MS wants Kinect to just be another feature 'built in' to the Xbox One. They want to show off the various features that are enabled by Kinect and the games that make use of it, without making Kinect seem like some separate piece.

So I don't think MS has to necessarily prove that Kinect is worth buying, they just have to prove that Kinect is a useful feature and a reason to buy an Xbox One. They have to show everything that is possible thanks to Kinect, beyond just motion controlled games. To get developers to on board in a serious way, they have bent over backwards to make the tool accessible and go as far as bundle the hardware with every console.

[Brendeth]

Well the sales difference isn't really a surprise, the UK has long been Sony Territory.

Congrats to Sony for the good sales and good luck to MS on closing that gap.

[Showan]

I agree, Kinect doesn't need purely motion controlled games to become a positive feature for the Xbox.

Again, MS is trying very hard to not push Kinect as its own thing. Just look at the commercials on TV. How many actually mention Kinect by name? Personally I haven't seen one, but if they are out there, it has to be pretty few. MS wants Kinect to just be another feature 'built in' to the Xbox One. They want to show off the various features that are enabled by Kinect and the games that make use of it, without making Kinect seem like some separate piece.

So I don't think MS has to necessarily prove that Kinect is worth buying, they just have to prove that Kinect is a useful feature and a reason to buy an Xbox One. They have to show everything that is possible thanks to Kinect, beyond just motion controlled games. To get developers to on board in a serious way, they have bent over backwards to make the tool accessible and go as far as bundle the hardware with every console.

 

well said...

 

Kinect is important to Microsoft, but the name not so much.  Yep Kinect servers an important role, but the only name they hope people know is 'Xbox'.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Well the sales difference isn't really a surprise, the UK has long been Sony Territory.

Congrats to Sony for the good sales and good luck to MS on closing that gap.

Actually the 360 kind of took over the UK. Its Europe on a whole that is mostly pro-Sony, but the UK individually went pro-MS and the 360 last gen.

[GotBored]

That's mostly what I was thinking too, I'm a huge fan of playstation, but even I admit, cheaper and launched first, were among the leading reasons for that result

 

Xbox One was launched first in the UK. (22nd Nov vs 29th Nov)

 

530k PS4's is a hell of lot considering the population is about 73m or so. You will struggle to find a ps4 too, xbox one has been much easier to buy, it is even in stock on amazon.

 

I read somewhere that the xbox one has a new sku that is being mass produced already, for microsoft's sake lets hope that is an xbox one with no kinect and launches at the same price as the ps4 otherwise microsoft is going to be selling 30% or so less consoles in uk and many other countries.

 

I highly doubt that they will remove the kinect now, it will undermine everything they went through just to bundle it and have that dev support.

 

Well since the ps4 is available in 40+ regions while the X1 is only in 13, I think MS' priority might be to release in more regions than trying to decide if they need to leave Kinect out.

Sales worldwide are going to go Sony's way as long as they are in more regions.

 

This thread is only UK sales where Xbox One was released a week before the PS4, in terms of Global Sales sales figures haven't been shared in a while.

 

Xbox One is selling very well... People assume that, because they see plenty of them in the store that's it's not doing good. Versus, Microsoft is making sure that the few regions that they did launch in, is well stocked.

 

There are many products that sell very well, no one said it wasn't. As the thread specifically states it just hasn't sold as much as the PS4.

[kaotic]

I think this is pretty impressive, but I also think it's quite impressive that the xbox is still so close to the ps4 sells considering the xbox is 100 bucks more. I guess it shows that people like the xbox brand.

[GotBored]

I think this is pretty impressive, but I also think it's quite impressive that the xbox is still so close to the ps4 sells considering the xbox is 100 bucks more. I guess it shows that people like the xbox brand.

 

Yes its also impressive that the PS4 is selling over 100,000 consoles a week and has sold more than the X1 even though it was released a week after the X1 in the UK.

The X1 has sold a bit more than 60k per week.

 

Also the PS4 sells for ?349.99 and the Xbox One sells for ?399.00 with a copy of FIFA 2014 in the UK, so its only ?50 difference in the UK actually.

FIFA 2014 (PS4) is ?44.50 so if you include that in the price differences than its only a ?5.50 difference.

 

I honestly don't see ?5.50 swaying many buyers.

[kaotic]

Yes its also impressive that the PS4 is selling over 100,000 consoles a week and has sold more than the X1 even though it was released a week after the X1 in the UK.

The X1 has sold a bit more than 60k per week.

 

Also the PS4 sells for ?349.99 and the Xbox One sells for ?399.00 with a copy of FIFA 2014 in the UK, so its only ?50 difference in the UK actually.

FIFA 2014 (PS4) is ?44.50 so if you include that in the price differences than its only a ?5.50 difference.

 

I honestly don't see ?5.50 swaying many buyers.

 

Well, let me be just a tad more specific. I think the fact that the xbox is selling so well given everything that happened last year is what i find impressive. 

[GotBored]

Well, let me be just a tad more specific. I think the fact that the xbox is selling so well given everything that happened last year is what i find impressive. 

 

I don't think most buyers even knew about the Xbox One DRM restrictions policy (Which was later removed after an online outcry against it) and those that did I doubt they cared after it was reversed.

[Skiver Veteran]

congrats to Sony, I don't think anyone doubted Sony would do well from the start and I suspect they may stay in front unless MS do drop their price. I do find it quite weird that out of all most the console gamers I know, they all went MS bar one yet MS are still quite a way behind.

 

I have to admit, now playing the PS4 for a bit I am happy with my choice, it may cost me ?100 more but just the little "Xbox, Record That" is enough to keep me happy. Maybe it was a few freak occurances but the recording software on the PS just seemed to never work properly at all. Like most have said, motion gaming isn't quite good enough (yet?) but the voice commands I have really started to use. I think that's because MS have designed it to make the console easier to use that way then just using the controller but I still really like it with this generation.