Print 48 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jul 18 at 11:08 AM

Who knew? Lowering the price results in a sales increase

Quickly after both console launched, the Sony PlayStation 4 quickly moved into the dominant sales lead over Microsoft’s Xbox One. Part of the reasoning could have been due to the PS4’s lower price of entry ($399) versus the Xbox One’s initial offering price of $499.
Microsoft looked to alleviate that price (and console sales gap) with the introduction of a Kinect-less bundle for $399 back in June. According to Xbox Wire, that decision has paid off handsomely. Since the June 9 launch of the new $399 Xbox One console, sales doubled compared to the month of May.

Although Microsoft failed to give exact sales numbers for the month of June, we do know that Microsoft sold roughly 115,000 Xbox One consoles (with Kinect) during the month of April.

Source: Xbox Wire

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Still does not fix the full issue…
By Marlin1975 on 7/17/2014 11:31:21 AM , Rating: 3
It now only cost the same as a PS4 and the PS4 still has better hardware.
Xbox still has a lead for online play but Sony has been catching up on that now. That can be updated with software. The hardware can’t be changed though.

Ever since I got a Roku3 I have not turned on my Xbox. Been at least 6 months since I used it. So I am not their main target but 2 system at the same price but one has better hardware seems like an easy choice, and I say that as someone that had 3 Xbox360’s.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By Manch on 7/17/2014 11:50:28 AM , Rating: 1
And they left everyone that bought one with a Kinect pissing in the wind which sucks. Still, it will boil down to exclusives as cross platform games will generally look the same and performance diff will shrink less & less as developers learn the hardware. Granted the learning curve isnt that bad compared to previous gen (ahem PS3) but MS decision to include SRAM/DDR3 vs DDR5 puts a wrinkle in there. Graphics wise while yeah has one less CU/SPE or whatever you call it vs the PS4 cross platform games are always built to the lowest common denominator between the two. This time being MS's console. Rarely do you see much if any diff.

As far as online goes, yeah MS has the win on that and while Sony is catching up, they need to beat MS at that game for that to pull any significant numbers over to there camp and even then, instead of being a single console owner they'll prolly just have two now. The ultimate metric will always be game attach rate.

Software side in regards to the console MS has a huge advantage there. OS wise, Not-Mantle and MS own Direct X, that's a huge leg up on Sony. While Sony has Not-Mantle as well, there OS is pretty light weight, they just dont have the resources to throw at it like MS does.

I prefer some games on PC and refuse to play them on a console (BF/Witcher) and some I play just on consoles now bc the PC versions are just crappy ports (COD). I usually get the multiplatform ones on MS bc the online is better supposedly (FYI F U COD on any platform $#$!!ing P2P/rewind crap)and thats what the rest of my family has, but mainly bc I just like the controller better than the PS one. It fits my hands better and the left analog stick position I like it better. The PS I use just for exclusives.

It will be interesting to see how things play out either way and neither console will fail. As long as I can continue to play games and my consoles dont turn into dust collectors due to lack of games (Wii!!!!) I'll be happy

How do you like the roku? Is it any better than a nuc or HTPC?

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By cwolf78 on 7/17/2014 12:32:36 PM , Rating: 1
Graphics wise while yeah has one less CU/SPE or whatever you call it vs the PS4 cross platform games are always built to the lowest common denominator between the two. This time being MS's console. Rarely do you see much if any diff.


RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By Manch on 7/17/2014 4:29:26 PM , Rating: 3
Ahem...Didja forget the 2 sentences before that or you just cherry picking?

Still, it will boil down to exclusives as cross platform games will generally look the same and performance diff will shrink less & less as developers learn the hardware. Granted the learning curve isnt that bad compared to previous gen (ahem PS3) but MS decision to include SRAM/DDR3 vs DDR5 puts a wrinkle in there.

Thanks for the link now actually go read the reviews and articles talking about the resolution diff on those games. 19 Games have a resolution advantage on the PS4 out of 32 cross platform games. They're linked in that wiki FYI and you'll see that for the most part reviewers find the differences small or negligible.

BF4 As you may notice in our screengrabs, the actual results on PS4 lack the corresponding level of crystal clarity we'd expect of such a significant resolution boost. This should surely be a home run for Sony's console, but what is likely to be a software-based upscale to 1080p delivers less-than-stellar returns, and for better or worse leaves the Xbox One with an often crisper looking, albeit much more aliased image.

COD GHOSTS -IGN says the difference in resolution "makes character models, weapons, and environments look noticeably sharper and more detailed" on PS4, a benefit that's "especially apparent on larger-sized TVs, where pixel density weighs more heavily in picture quality".

But the site goes on to say that "the difference is harder to identify in absence of a side-by-side comparison".

IGN noted "occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4", while observing that "the Xbox One version was stable throughout".

Wolfenstein -demonstrating a scene where PC runs native 1080p, with both PS4 and Xbox One upscaling in the same area. However, the degree of scaling varies between the consoles, with PS4 holding the advantage

Hopefully you get the point here, that there is largely very little difference. I didnt say never, and resolution alone doesnt tell you how it will look. There's no arguement that the PS4 is more powerful but as I said, developers will go with the lowest common denominator.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By nikon133 on 7/17/2014 5:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that either console is being 100% utilised at present. After all, most current multiplatforms were/are still designed for previous generation in mind, which makes it easier for current generation to cope with. That might be a reason why games look mostly the same - but the question is how much each platform stresses to get there. How much reserve do PS4 and XBO have while running same-looking Wolfenstein, for example? How much further can they go?

Sure developers will get better at optimizing code for XBO, but it is not like they will not improve on PS4 as well, right? Especially that PS4 is easier to program, and is likely to be more prioritised/chosen development platform as it has larger base and - so far - multiplatform games sold more on PS4.

Major concern for me is this, though: what will happen when next Unreal/Crytek/FrostByte/... engine forces developers to fall back in resolution in order to keep eye-candy at desired level? PS4 can fall back from 1080p and 900p to 720p. XBO will have less space to fall back. 30 - 50% of theoretical GPU advantage is not something that developers can easily cover up with "smarter programming" without sacrificing IQ.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By Manch on 7/17/2014 5:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they're not. Look at the early 360/ps3 games vs PS2/xbox. Better resolution and draw distance and thats about it. Compare games on those platforms now compared to the release titles and its a night and day difference. Same thign is happening again in regards to the 360/ps3 vs ps4/xbone. The PS4 is more powerful. No arguement there. I just dont think developers will take advantage of it for cross platform games unless it's an easy win. So you wont see much difference. Look at the 360 & PS3 exclusives vs the multi platform games. Even the PC versions dont offer much more even though the hardware is sooo much more capable. Why is that? Cost and ease of development. The difference will be in exclusives. Those will push the systems. Those will be the titles that extract every ounce of power from those machines.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By nikon133 on 7/17/2014 6:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hard to say. If I recall correctly, games for first Xbox did look better than PS2 games. Major problem was that many games simply did not appear on Xbox at all, as it came late, not established brand in gaming consoles world and eventually ended up commanding, what? 20 - 25% of PS2 user base?

X360 vs. PS3, Xbox had better GPU and was easier to code for. PS3's (relatively) successful catch up in terms of visuals for later games might be related to developers learning how to utilise power of CELL co-processors to reduce IQ deficit... and, of course, running close in numbers helped some development to shift to PS3 as primary platform... but on average, X360 kept slight advantage in multiplatform visuals.

But with XBO vs. PS4... XBO has weaker GPU (and arguably RAM, though some believe that eSRAM will nullify advantage of GDDR5... questionable theory), is more complicated to code and has less user base. That is a lot of downsides on XBO's side. Games developed for XBO and ported to PS4, sure - will look mostly the same. But games developed for PS4 and ported to XBO? I don't know. Why would developer cripple visuals for majority of potential buyers in order to make it look the same as minority's version? I think we will be seeing more inferior ports on XBO than on PS4.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By Manch on 7/17/2014 6:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
You'll see it for the same reason we get lazy ports to the PC which has infinitely better hardware. Cost savings from doing extra work. Plus the developer wants the experience to be largely the same. They don't want reviewers bagging a certain version bc it would hurt sales for that platform. If they're releasing it on that platform its bc they think they can make money.

PS3's catch up was bc of software tool development allowed it to be more efficient in regards to memory. PS3 definitely had a weaker GPU albeit not as bad as the xbone vs ps4 but an arguably better proc. The Cells SPE's were awesome in theory. They could be configured to do whatever you needed. Problem was they need memory to do this. That lack of system memory killed its potential. as middleware developers and Sony learned the system they were able to make more efficient code with smaller footprints to free up resources and thus you started to see vast improvements with the console. Also I don't believe the PS3 had a hardware scaler. I think it was all done via software which chewed up memory as well. The 360 had one though.

The xbone is weaker and it will ultimately show in the exclusives. ESRAM is a great way to mask latency with DDR3 which isn't horribad to begin with. DDR5 is faster but it's not as severe a gap as the cut down cu in the xbone is.

Xbone does have a smaller user base but its not like the console is dying. Plus even though PS4, Xbone, and PC games are all running on x86, to of the 3 are running windows & direct x so the "porting" between these platforms is negligible. The PS4 will be the one to get the port.

Lastly, MS has A LOT of resource to toss at the xbone, so dont underestimate them. Sony does not. The commanding lead of the PS4 will help Sony, and if they're smart they will not rely on the hardware alone to stay ahead and develope there middleware. MS is aggressively doing that and bending over backwards to free up resources, help developers utilize the ESRAM. While MS will be able to close the gap, they will never be able close it.

I will add to the Sony PS4 user base as soon as the Last of Us edition console comes out. MS already has plenty of my money from my xbone, 360 & PC purchases of late.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By nikon133 on 7/17/2014 10:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
You have some good points there, but I don't agree with them all. Not saying I'm right, only time will tell :)

But for the sake of discussion...

PC should always be the development platform, but that is not the case. Many possible reasons come to mind - MS is not showing much love for games for Windows (so why should developers). Too many different hardware options available make it hard to optimize for. Who knows what else. But when you think of it, many games were console only, and quite a few were console first or at least developed with consoles in mind. Battlefield 3, BF: Bad Company 2, L.A. Noire, GTA4... come to mind, among others.

Will DX12 make XBO and Windows development completely transparent. I don't know. My understanding is that it will give PC developers tools to code closer to hardware, something that console SDKs already provide (which is why Xbox boss said that customers should not expect miracles from DX12 on XBO). But will it completely unify PC/XBO development? There are still real differences in architecture (like eSRAM) and I would think there are some artificial ones, as MS wouldn't like little hackers to easily crack and enable XBO games to run on PC, among other things; or that every game is developed for both PC and XBO, which would render XBO quite pointless (and which is why MS stopped releasing Halo, GoW... to PC after initial releases).

Thus - yes, XBO will benefit from some games being developed for PC/XBO first, but I think it will not be a landslide trend. Eventually, I will be very surprised if, at the end of the lifecycle of XBO and PS4, I do look back and NOT see that PS4 had more better looking/smoother playing multiplatform titles.

Of course, MS has more money and can "bungee" more developers with long term contracts. It doesn't seem to be happening, though - they got Insomniac but lost Bungee - but I think that possibility will hang in the air; maybe even the greatest danger for PS4.

By Manch on 7/18/2014 5:50:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for actaully having a discussion instead of a troll-a-thon :D

Time will tell...and yeah I agree that the PC should be but sadly most developers have shied away from the PC and develope on consoles because of piracy concerns. It does happen on consoles but not as much. Plus having a specific hardware to develope for is much much easier than supporting the multitude of PC configs. Dont forget about Crysis 2. Developed for consoles. At least they went back to PC as teh primary platform for 3.

The GPU's in the 2 consoles is 11.2 capable. DX 12 will make some things easier but and will adopt some of the things mantle has done but not all. It is afterall still a high level API. I think a combination of DX 12 and "Not-Mantle" will enable very efficient coding for the xbone. The PS4 has "not-mantle" as well and uses open GL. Plus Sony did a lot of work to help developers to get the most out of the PS3. This time will be no different and we can expect some awesome titles from them. Sony learn there lesson from the PS3 in regards to ease of programming and took a very simplified aproach to the hardware this time which funny enough is how MS did with the xbox to get its foot in the door.

DX 12 will make xbone/PC developement about as pain free as possible, which is why I think the multiplatform games will take the easy wins on the PS4 hardware but really wont push it.

PS4 will win in the graphics department, no doubt I just hope they dont do it at the expense of smoothness (lookng at you COD). As for online, MS continues to have the win there but Sony is no slouch. Smoothness well that boils down to the game developer not pushing more than what they can get out of either machine at the time ( COD? hello agin).

I dont think these consoles will have the shelf life of the 360 & PS3. I think we will see a return to the 5yr cycle. MS will probably push that and Sony will not want to be left in the dust.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By Mr_Quirk on 7/17/2014 6:52:51 PM , Rating: 3
Last month when I was reading up on the new Witcher 3 game I learned some interesting information about the Xbox One.

"This month Microsoft updated the Xbox Development Kit (XDK) so games that are not using skeletal tracking with Kinect can choose to use the portion of the Xbox One's graphics processing unit that was previously reserved. Now, games have access to 100 per cent of the Xbox One GPU for increased resolution and graphical effects."

Apparently before June, developers of Xbox One games had to always dedicate a portion of the available processing power to the Kinect whether their game actually used the Kinect or not. I read a few other articles suggesting that the Kinect may have been using as much of 10% of the console's GPU.

By Manch on 7/18/2014 6:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah 10% was reserved for the Kinect. They probably did that to save money vs a dedicated chip just for it. That was a mistake. I wonder if freeing up the 10% will allow developers to patch the released games to get a bit more out of the system, smooth out frame rates or prevent scaling ie Wolfenstein.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By NellyFromMA on 7/17/2014 1:17:14 PM , Rating: 3
And they left everyone that bought one with a Kinect pissing in the wind which sucks.

The alternative seemed to be that they would be stuck with a system that wasn't supported for long rather than simply the Kinect. Consumer's spoke with their wallet, MS tried.

If you're upset on those people's behalf, bemoan the people who weren't interested in the bundle MS provided.

By Chaser on 7/17/2014 4:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you're upset on those people's behalf, bemoan the people who weren't interested in the bundle MS provided.
So it was the consumers fault for Microsoft including Kinect. Right.

By Manch on 7/17/2014 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, The console was and is still selling well, just not as much as the PS4 which is selling great. It's not like the console was going to fail. Kinect was integral to their vision of the xbone and they shed it to bring the price to parity with the PS4, but not feature parity. I've siad this in other posts about the xbone, that now that the kinect is no longer part of the xbone console, its doomed to be voice remote/webcam. No developers will use it for anything significant.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By acer905 on 7/17/2014 12:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
And due to their god-awful controller I will never in my life buy another Playstation. I had the original, pre-ridiculous analog sticks and it was a passable controller. Then they tacked them on like an afterthought and made an abomination only surpassed by the N64 trident.

By nikon133 on 7/17/2014 6:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
Funny how relative this is :)

I'm using X360 controller on my PC and Dualshocks on my PSs... and I prefer PS design. I'd say the symmetry of my thumbs position does it for me - on X360 controller my left thumb is too much forward and close to left shoulder/trigger buttons.

That being said, I did use PS controllers more than X360 one, so there's that. Much as I am concerned, Sony fixed all issues I had with previous versions, by making it with a bit larger hand-grips, putting analogue sticks a bit more further from each other and changing shape of triggers and sticks. Only real complain? Battery doesn't last long. PS3 controller would last me a week on average, between charging. PS4, 3 to 4 days.

By NellyFromMA on 7/17/2014 1:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, while software can be updated, Microsoft's lead with Xbox live vs Sony's equivalent has a LOT more to do with hardware and their cloud platform than it does with the software on the device.

That's not to say that as a whole, Sony's offering maybe is better (maybe it isn't that big of a difference in reality, though) but Sony doesn't have a highly scalable cloud platform that I am aware of (I also didn't look) and that is really the "meat and potatoes" of Xbox Live.

RE: Still does not fix the full issue…
By althaz on 7/17/2014 11:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
PS4 unarguably has the more powerful hardware, but XBox is (for now) well ahead in terms of games.

Not sure what they can do to catch up in the console sales front though.

Right now they have better games and are selling worse. In the future Sony's horde of quality studios will probably tip the exclusive games balance back their (Sony's) way meaning PS4 will probably end up with better exclusives and (slightly) better graphics. Other than the better online play, better media features and better overall interface execution, I'm not sure if Microsoft will ever be able to catch up?

I already have the XB1 - it does have the better games after all and if I wanted a console to play today I still think the XB1 is the clear choice for me (though there aren't any cross platform games I play on console - I get those on PC), but I feel like that advantage is going to be gone in a year.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2014 11:08:14 AM , Rating: 1
Confirmation bias:

You bought the XboxOne, so obviously it's the best choice.

By Flunk on 7/17/2014 11:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft can afford to take a bit of a hit on the hardware. What they need to do is reduce to $300, Sony can't match that.

RE: $300
By Manch on 7/17/2014 11:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
or $400 w/Kinect!

RE: $300
By Flunk on 7/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: $300
By hughlle on 7/17/2014 12:22:26 PM , Rating: 1
Does seem that by offering this lower cost option, and the corresponding sales numbers, they're pretty much consigning the kinnect to a gimmick. Without it as a mandatory feature, what will compel a smaller game company from just saving the resources required to make their games kinnect friendly, why bother when half the owners don't have the ability to use it, and half of the selling point of the kinnect was "convenience" and the "figures" indicate that people couldn't care less, and MS are hardly about to cripple the ease of use of the kinnect-less version to encourage kinnect adoption. I say that, this is MS i'm talking about..

RE: $300
By Manch on 7/17/2014 4:37:40 PM , Rating: 1
pretty much consigning the kinnect to a gimmick

yup! you hit the nail on the head.

RE: $300
By BRB29 on 7/17/2014 12:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they should stop manufacturing the Kinect entirely and save the money.

This is entirely your unsupported opinion. While I praise the $399 xbox one, I am 100% sure there are plenty of people who enjoy the Kinect 2 like myself. Not for games but for apps and TV. I rarely use any remotes since I had the xb1 and it's a blessing.

RE: $300
By Flunk on 7/17/2014 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's fine, enjoy your Rob the Robot. Just don't expect much software support in the future.

RE: $300
By arazok on 7/17/2014 1:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
I’m with you. Love my Kinect. It’s the only thing that differentiates the Xbox from the PS4 in a positive way.

The Kinect is one of those things you don’t care about until you own it, and then it’s indispensable. Voice commands, and automatic sign in are godsends.

If this stupid thing could play media over the network, it would actually become my “One” unit for my living room. I dreamed of that since the 360 came out and failed to live up to expectations. I’m waiting for plex on xbox to complete my vision.

RE: $300
By Manch on 7/17/2014 4:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
I play stuff on my PC and send it to the xbone all the time. Or do you mean send it from the xbone to elsewhere?

The 360 I used the media center. Worked great for me. I use an old sprint/samsung galaxy w/ keyboard as a touch pad/kb remote to control my media PC and sling it to my xboxes

By EasyC on 7/17/2014 11:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
Although Microsoft failed to give exact sales numbers for the month of June,

So the heading says it "doubled", then the article says they never released the numbers.

MS says "Hey we doubled sales!!! But we won't give you any information other than our word!" Sounds more like they are trying to convince people they aren't failing.

RE: Really?
By jnemesh on 7/17/2014 1:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly like they do with Windows Phone and Surface. The numbers are horrid, barely above April's numbers, but they look GREAT compared to May, when buyers were holding off on buying after the announcement of the $399 sku!

But hey, the PR spin worked! I see "MS doubles Xbox sales" headlines all over the net this morning!

By siberus on 7/17/2014 12:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder what the sales figures look like in Canada. Since Sony raised the price of the ps4 to $450 and the xbone is going for $399.

RE: Hmm
By StevoLincolnite on 7/17/2014 7:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
In allot of countries the Playstation 4 is actually more expensive than the Xbox One, sometimes by a significant amount.

It would be interesting to see sales data from those territory's. :)

Here in Australia for Instance, The Xbox One with Kinect is $600, whilst without Kinect it's $500, with the PS4 smack-bang in the middle at $550.
But, you also get games with the Xbox console... With the PS4 at that price point you don't, you need to plop down an extra $50 which brings it to $600.

If you take a look over at Brazil, the PS4 launched at $1,800 whilst the Xbox One is at $1016 USD, which is simply nuts.

Nice move but
By Chaser on 7/17/14, Rating: 0
By hughlle on 7/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By retrospooty on 7/17/2014 11:40:12 AM , Rating: 2
"They really do need to sit down and just try listening to a sample of the public before just blindly deciding what the public want."

Exactly. That would have solved soooo many of their issues in the past 3 years.

RE: Surprised?
By hughlle on 7/17/14, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By Manch on 7/17/2014 11:52:17 AM , Rating: 5
and get rid of the #@$!ing ribbon interface!!! or at least let me go back to the old menu!

RE: Surprised?
By acer905 on 7/17/2014 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 1
Once again proving that MS should have ceased all GUI development upon the release of Windows 95... People will never stop complaining about change.

RE: Surprised?
By PrinceGaz on 7/17/2014 12:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 for Workgroups for the latest and greatest version) was better than Windows 95. A lot more robust, anyway.

RE: Surprised?
By Manch on 7/17/2014 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
We used to call 3.11 Windows for Warehouses bc of the issues with it. It did get better though

RE: Surprised?
By inighthawki on 7/17/2014 12:21:37 PM , Rating: 1
I like the ribbon interface. I can absolutely understand some of the complaints from some of the seasoned Office veterans who know all menus and shortcuts, but for average users I really get the impression that the ribbon menu is much more intuitive and easier to use. When I first started using Office 2007 (Keep in mind I was an extremely light user) I had to start using it for some bigger projects, and I found it incredibly easy to use and navigate, and finding things was a breeze.

I don't think it'd be too hard to incorporate some of the desired features in the ribbon. You can really look at the ribbon menu as a menu bar with horizontal drop-down lists with better graphics and more functionality per element, instead of vertical context menus. And at that point you can see that fixing it to work more like the old style interface wouldn't be too tough.

RE: Surprised?
By Manch on 7/17/2014 4:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Some people love it, and for them I say cool. For me it's counter intuitive. Some of the icons just baffle me though and drives me insane. Having to relearn where things are at or to now have them burried 18+ freakin layers down is ungodly annoying. they def built it for the light users, but they left power users hanging. Seems to be a theme with them.

RE: Surprised?
By inighthawki on 7/17/2014 7:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
or to now have them burried 18+ freakin layers down is ungodly annoying

I'm not sure what you men here. Maybe I'e never used these features, but the ribbon is general no more than two layers deep (Main ribbon + some dropdown lists). I would go as far as to say that the old style menus would be far inferior in this regard, considering they are hierarchical context menus...

RE: Surprised?
By Manch on 7/18/2014 7:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
For simple stuff yeah the ribon works but a lot of stuff was moved and buried into obscurity and you often drill down through menus you wouldnt think it would be under. This is not just an office issue. Look at how control panel has changed, or look at the settings menu in WP8. No ryhme or reason for the ordering.

RE: Surprised?
By Manch on 7/18/2014 7:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
I should add that obvisuosly this is my personal preference. Some people get more mileage out of the ribbon. I dont. It has only hindered my productivity having to relearn everything and now that I have for the most part, doesnt make anything easier just aggravating.

RE: Surprised?
By retrospooty on 7/17/2014 12:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
"It seems that it is not a case of not having listened to the public, the people who will be buying the product, but more a case of having heard the public and just not caring."

Fair enough. They need to do what customers want and not force their own internal agenda down customers throats.

RE: Surprised?
By karimtemple on 7/17/2014 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what the comparison to Apple is supposed to be, considering how wildly successful Apple's products -- and bottom line -- have been in comparison to the Xbox One and Windows 8.

Also, considering the headline "sales have doubled after price decrease," it seems apparent that the problem didn't actually have anything to do with what you're talking about, and was most likely due to the price.

At release, the feature set of the Xbox One seemed fine. So once again, not really sure what you're on about here.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki