Network now...NEWS
MS Launches Biggest Ever Xbox 360 Marketing Blitz
Microsoft has made the single largest marketing investment in Xbox history for its largest global ad campaign, spending more money on a series of promotions that it did for the launch of the Xbox 360 or Halo 3.
The campaign theme is “Live your Moment” and is targeted at “the casual and social segments”, illustrating Microsoft’s desire to evolve the Xbox 360 from a gaming platform to a mainstream entertainment platform. According to the company, “It’s about real people having emotional and connected Xbox gaming and entertainment experiences with their friends and family.”
The pre-Christmas marketing blitz is set to include television, billboard and print ads, as well as retail displays and digital marketing around the world, supported by PR outreach, social networking and direct customer communication efforts.
The marketing kicked off on Friday in the US and will debut in Europe this Thursday, emphasizing the relatively cheap Xbox 360 entry price of $199 / £129.99, the “New Xbox Experience” launching this fall and the system’s lineup of upcoming titles.
Microsoft said in a press release that “the campaign will be particularly critical in EMEA, where we are focused on shifting brand perception and driving re-appraisal of the platform in a very competitive region with entrenched competition.”
As in the US, European ads will air during top-rated shows across TV networks in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
You can check out one of the TV spots here.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
waha ha ha "Live your Moment"....It's new. It's innovative. It's a lifestyle choice..... and its completely not the same as "This is Living".
Unfortunately MS are hampered with the brand "XBOX"..... which to casual & social segments, to parents and most girls..... will always mean ***GEEK***. They may as well have called the machine GEEKbox or the AntiSocialStation (ASS)
MS need to grow some real balls and ***change the brand*** to "PlayBox"........or just the MS Wee... thats right.. "Wee" not "Wii"....... by the time all the litigation is sorted out MS would already be the market dominator with their new brand.
In the most recent online gaming report from the NPD Group, the Xbox 360 was listed as the most popular console online, accounting for 50 percent of the online market. While this surprises the pundits, anyone who’s actually seen Sony and Nintendo’s offerings probably wasn’t too shocked to read this.
http://www.unclepayday.ca
Microsoft desperately needs a winner after several failed endeavors: The poorly-received, clunky Windows Vista, their failure to establish a foothold in the Search Engine Industry (being shunned by a faltering Yahoo in their acquisition bid), the dying Zune (The Wall Street Journal predicts that "at the rate of its market decline, the Zune player looks like it's headed from low to no market share". Even Sandisk managed to beat it), the dead Xbox HD-DVD (trounced by Blu-ray), its Windows Mobile OS being effectively scuppered by the Iphone OS (Dec 2008 report: Iphone OS year-per-year growth is +328% while Windows Mobile OS is -3%) and finally - having no presence at all in the handheld console business which is dominated by Nintendo DS (68%) and Sony PSP (32%) successively. Worse, Apple has quietly entered the fray with it's iPhone and ipod Touch set to capture a substantial segment of the market with its rapidly growing library of addictive, casual pop-cap like games.
And looks like they found a winner with the 360. That's why they're pouring everything into it, even spending ridiculous amouns of cash to acquire exclusives.
And I think we should all be glad for this, because compared to their other efforts, Xbox 360 looks like a product with genuine quality and can definitely satisfy even the most die-hard anti-MS fanatic (RROD nothwithstanding). Gosh, I think they nailed it this time.
True. But you failed to mention that the same NPD report says that only 25 percent of the online gamers polled use consoles vs. the 87 percent who uses PC. 50% of 25% is only 12.5% = Xbox 360's share in the total online gaming market.
Sony's online offering is just as good as MS's when it comes to playing online. The only thing LIVE offers that's extra is cross game invites and cross game chats, also PSN is free whereas live may cost up to £390 ($500) over the life time of the console.
Well, maybe that's true Arron but your point backfires when you state PSN is free. That just makes the 360's online performance even more impressive since it costs $50 bucks a year (or 500 bucks lifetime), and PSN is, as you put it, free. There must be SOMETHING that makes the 360's online component more attractive to gamers since it has such a commanding lead in that department over PS3 (with the recently released numbers maybe it's not so impressive considering the Wii has a 9% lead over the PS3 in the online user department, too). We can't attribute it to installed base (as I mentioned in another post) because that would mean the Wii should be number one online and it isn't, and by a long shot. Interesting to say the least, and it kind of puts Sony's 20 million PSN accounts claim into a whole new light...
My point doesn't backfire though. Just what are you paying for with live? You get dedicated servers on many games on PSN- you don't on XBOX LIVE. Of course you get P2P connection but you get that for free on PSN anyway. Just exactly what are you paying $500 extra over the life of the console for? I mean leaving the console comparisons out of it for a moment PC owners can get LIVE for free.
Also way to conflate your point by mixing Wii figures when trying to explain the 360's higher online presence over the PS3. I make no claims about which service is more popular and I'm not getting drawn into your typical fanboy strawman argument, I'm just posing the question; what are you actually getting for that extra $500? Which online service gives better value? The free one that does the online gaming part of the service as well as LIVE or the one that costs up to $500 (if the 10 year life span claim is to be taken at face value) over the life of the console? $500 is an extra 8 games (if you're dumb enough to buy from a bricks and mortar store).
At one point during my post I did mention that there must be SOMETHING about live that is attractive enough for people to pay. I can't answer what people are getting more from live than what they are getting from PSN but whatever they're getting, they don't mind paying, and neither do I. If you break it down by month, it costs less than 4 bucks (a 12 month live card is 50 bucks but they are 12+1 cards so 50 bucks for 13 months is less than 4 bucks).
I guess it's debatable which console gets you better online value, and no one can really answer which online service is better as that's totally subjective. One is free and one isn't and the one that costs money is hugely successful and the one that is free isn't quite as successful. So either the people paying just don't know any better (or they don't have a choice ^^), or maybe live is "better" than PSN.
The other question is, is if Sony charged would their fans pay since they wouldn't have a choice? Probably.
I could try to list features MS offers for its online community that PSN doesn’t offer, but as you put it, you don’t want to get involved in that which is fine with me. But I do think the feature set is definitely more robust and more than just cross game chat/invites with live.
Is 12.5% of the (American) online market hugely successful? The other 87.5% of people who game online (in America) use free services, put down your Microsoft pom-poms and look at the bigger picture.
Go on list all the features you get from LIVE that are included in the LIVE subscription that you can't get on other services, both PC (including Games for Windows LIVE), PSN, Wii or XBOX LIVE Silver. Don't even list netflix as you need an additional subscription to netflix and it's not universally available to all Gold subscribers.
Jumping in late to this debate, yes 12.5% is hugely successful. 87.5% of $0 is still less money than 12.5% at $40-50 per year. There are a plethora of features on Live that cannot be found anywhere else precisely because it is a closed system with a uniform set of standards. PSN and PC online is a chaotic mess with communities forming within a specific game, but not across the entire platform. Literally every game on 360 follows the same set of rules so the experience, features and community are consistent and connected.
By contrast, not all PSN/PC games allow you to see what your friends are playing, invite them into any game (regardless of what they're playing), support voicechat in all games and even chat when playing different games (or single player games), send and receive messages when not gaming (from the xbox website), order content from the website to queue onto the system, and analyze friends/potential friends gaming habits both on the system and from the website to find gamers with similar tastes and gaming styles. Finally, Live! requires demos for all XBLA and Community games which neither PSN or PC does for every title you can purchase online.
Yeah all that is available for Silver members who don't pay a penny for it. What exactly are you getting for your subscription that you can't get on other services for free?
Also it isn't LIVE that requires demos, it's Marketplace.
No - all that is not available for Silver members. You can't play online with a Silver account (except for free weekend promotions, etc.), which is the main part of "playing online". Why would someone send a game invite to someone if they can't play online???
Marketplace IS part of Live - it's part of the integrated online platform and falls under the standards benefits I detailed (i.e. the standard requires demos). You're arguing semantics and I fail to see the differentiation in terms of this debate.
"No - all that is not available for Silver members. You can't play online with a Silver account (except for free weekend promotions, etc.), which is the main part of "playing online". Why would someone send a game invite to someone if they can't play online???"
I can play online for free with Games for Windows LIVE, PSN and Steam. Which is partly my point.
"Marketplace IS part of Live - it's part of the integrated online platform and falls under the standards benefits I detailed (i.e. the standard requires demos). You're arguing semantics and I fail to see the differentiation in terms of this debate."
You aren't paying your subscription for Marketplace.
Where did you get 12.5% and 87.5%, were you just making up numbers to make your point (which you did)?
You're right, those were all the features I was talking about but didn't list. The xbox.com features, it being linked directly to your xbox is great. You can even send/check messages to xbox friends through xbox.com, and you can also queue up 6 downloads at a time and have them download while your system is off (love that feature). Oh, and Netflix isn't bad either, and the 1k+ movies through the xbox marketplace is nice, too.
I was just using Arron's numbers as a basis for the argument. I don't know where he came up with them.
"NPD told Edge that among online gamers surveyed, 87 percent play PC games, down from 90 percent from a 2008 survey. It's still the most widely-used platform for online gaming, NPD said."
http://www.edge-online.com/news/pc-remains-online-gaming-leader
So the number who game online with consoles is 13%, 50% of that is 6.50% so I was being rather generous.
From the same article:
Of the 20K surveyed, 25 percent said they used a console for online gaming, up from 19 percent in 2008.
Xbox 360 led the console online gaming pack, with 50 percent of online gamers saying they use Microsoft's machine to play online.
Oh ok, so my original figure of 12.5 was correct then.
So Xbox Live is better because you're paying $40-50 a year for a consistently expensive experience as opposed to the chaotic cost-lessness of PSN/PC? I'm glad you're happy, man.
If you fail to see the benefits of standardization and strong community for online then clearly Live is not meant for you (maybe you don't play online much). Nothing wrong with that, but I don't see why you feel the need to criticize anyone that thinks MS have have actually done something right once or twice (which you clearly don't based on your posting history).
As someone who plays online on PC/PSN/Live/Wii/DS/PSP, I can clearly see the benefits and would gladly pay Sony $50 a year if they matched Live feature-for-feature. Of course, that is impossible since their lack of standards and failure to include a headset means that there is a back library that would not be compliant and a large percentage of users who will never contribute to a strong community. PC by its very nature makes it impossible to have platform uniformity. That's ok, as it has other strengths.
It's purely a value proposition. If you own an Xbox and have Live Gold, then you've experienced the benefits especially when compared to playing over PSN and Wii. YOU decide whether or not it's worth $50 annually. If you haven't played both and had a chance to compare...then you have no idea. I can say that the Live is worth it for me because the fully integrated ways you're able to get into a party and switch from game to game, quick connections, friend invites...early demos, Xbox community videos, not to mention netflix...all these things to me are worth it. The voice quality is also far better when you're chatting over Live than other services. that's not part of the "paid" service, but it don't hurt. PSN is usually fine though as a game service since most people don;t have headsets, but when they do it's usually a cheap bluetooth set that usually sounds horrible. Not being a fanboy, I can honestly just say I much prefer to play games over Live because the quality is so obvious.
If you're arguing with somone who hasn't experienced the difference themselves, then you're in an argument you can;t possibly win as they will not understand your points.
I've used XBOX LIVE Gold, Steam and PSN and I don't see the point in paying to do something that is free on every other platform. It's as simple as that.
Then it's not worth the $50/year for you which is totally cool. But the other networks don't offer Netflix or the other things I named earlier. That's all I'm saying.
I am just asking the simple question; What are you actually getting for your money? PSN, Games for Windows Live and Steam all offer a standardised service that offer some or all of the features you get on XBOX Live Gold for free, more importantly you get to play other people online for free on those services. The features you've trumpeted as being the reason why you pay for LIVE are available, FOR FREE, to Silver users.
Don't throw your dummy out the pram because someone's just pointing it out to you.
Well, I can't think of many different ways to state what you are obviously failing to understand. PSN, GFW-Live and Steam are not remotely similar to 360 Live! Every PC game released is not GFW-Live compatible, every PC game ever released does not offer the same features (let alone uniform implementation of them) and every PS3 game ever released does not support the same online features (many PS3 games do not even support voicechat, let alone the other features).
That's what you're paying a premium for on Live - a closed platform where literally EVERY title supports the same features which leads to broader adoption and stronger sense of community. When 9-10 million people are paying $40-50 per year for a service they tend to use it. PC/PSN/etc lack community across their platforms specifically because their users don't have a vested financial interest in the service. Generally speaking, people use what they pay for and devalue something that's just handed out to them. Live is certainly not for everyone - just those who play a lot online and see value in an online community, rather than the relative anonymity and inelegance of gaming online on PC/PSN/Wii.
In game voice chat is available for free to silver users.
87% of people who game online use a PC- for free.
Nice dodge. Again, you can't play online with Silver. Again, not every PC game supports the same online features or community. That's what Live Gold members are paying a premium for.
I'm not claiming that you can play online with a Silver account. I'm just pointing out that those features that you claim to get for your subscription, in game voice chat for example, can be done with a Silver account for free. I don't understand why you can't grasp this rather simple point.
You are simply paying to play online and I can do that for free using other services. Do you understand this?
You can't have one without the other, ArronC07. Silver is the gateway drug to give people a taste of what the service has to offer in the hopes of migrating them to Gold. Those services I listed are largely meaningless if you're not playing online. What would be the point of most of those services without the online play portion of it?
Gold members are paying for the entire array of services (with the primary hook being the ability to utilize those features while playing online) and Silver is like the free demos - you get a small taste, but it doesn't do you much good if you don't buy the whole thing. It doesn't matter that online play is free on other platforms if they don't offer the same standardization and benefits, just as Live-Silver doesn't matter if you can't play online. Gold members are paying for the WHOLE package - not just a portion of it.
Dude, I'm just pointing out that the argument that you get features like in game voice chat when you subscribe to a Gold account and that's what makes the Gold fee worth it is a crock of shit. You can use that feature, for free, on a silver account.
Gold members are paying to play online and that's a feature that is standard on other platforms.
Well, 50% of gamers tend to not mind paying for live, while only 20% of gamers like to game online through the free PSN. You tell me what's wrong with that picture...
I think you mean 6.5% of gamers don't mind paying for it....
NPD's numbers they released stated 50% of console gamers use the 360 for their online needs, 29% of them use the Wii, and 20% use the PS3. So, like I said, 50% of CONSOLE gamers use the 360 for online play. Those individuals don't mind paying. 20% of console gamers like to use the free PSN when 50% of users like to use live, which again, is not free. There's no way to spin those numbers in favor of PSN, regardless of cost/not cost involved. Mentioning cost actually hurts your argument since 50% of console gamers are willing to pay for their live use when only 20% of console gamers use the PSN service, which embarrassingly enough, is free.
I think he means 50% of 360 owners (although it's actually around 58% of 360 owners who pay for Gold memberships).
Where did you get that figure from? Have MS started breaking down those LIVE figures now?
MS has stated several times that "well over" 50% of their Live subscribers are Gold members. The numbers I cited were from a Seattle-Post Intelligencer article where they got a copy of an internal MS Excel spreadsheet with membership breakdown. It was from Feb.2008 so it's a little out of date, but it had 56% globally and 60% in the US as Gold members. I posted it once before in case anyone was interested but here it is again for your reference: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/161658.asp
I'd go with because there are how many more of them in US?
Jees Nick, I had been reading posts and thinking that you were really starting to get out of the habbit of this fanboy knee-jerk reaction to anyone saying anything that isn't singing ms's praises, alas, I was wrong. Dude, If you look at the other posts, I believe he is a PC gamer not a PS3 gamer, or thats how it looks from his posts, so you kinda just shot yourself in the foot. Or are you now going to say that it's because there are more PCs? Go on, pleeeaaase.
Either way, these numbers mean nothing to anyone, the have said that bascically any opnline console activity is counted, there are different numbers for each machine, and it was done by NPD. Could they be anymore meaningless?
Arron simply said in his first post that he didn't see why people pay so much for MS services when it is nearly idnetical, which I agree with, it is neraly identical. He didn't insult you, or MS, just seemed like he was pointing out the obvious to me and asking the question, what are you paying for? He did not say everyone that pays for Live is wrong, I'm assuming he pays for live and just wonders why. I wonder what I'm paying for.
Yeah, you're right I had been backing off for a while but I do like to speak up from time to time.
I know he didn't insult me and from what I remember my post wasn't insulting either. I just wanted to point out that maybe there's something that he doesn't see since obviously enough gamers think it's worth the cost. I can't tell him what people's reason for being willing to pay are, but I can say that I don't mind paying for what I'm getting as I think it's worth it. Like I have a choice though right? ;)
It's impossible for me to answer that question (what the difference is that's worth paying for), only someone who has used the PSN and Live extensively could answer that. But really, we 360 gamers don't have a choice but I think most of us find the cost worth it. I don't have a PS3, but from reading/research I'm aware what features the PSN lacks that Live offers, but I don't really want to get into it (some posts above really cover that rather well).
I'm exhausted from all this, I can't keep up anymore like I used to. I'll let grognard take over as the main 360 defender as he seems to have the passion I used to posses...^^
It is a total rip-off. The only (convoluted)excuse I can think of for charging for Live is that Microsoft can use the revenue to improve Live and give us things like NXE. Though I'm not sure that excuse is going to fly.
As for the ten year thing, yeah right. Sony is the only console with a shot at it. But that becomes irrelevant when the next xbox rolls out and Sony is forced to compete.
Hmm this seems like a good a idea why not Sony take a page from Microsoft and have two price cuts. Spring time May-ish cut PS3's 100$ then when a game like God of War III comes out round let's say December you have another price cut of about 50$ and hmm let's see you'll have a PS3 for 250$ and holy cow how's that for marketing. Hell I honestly hope for the sake of Microsoft Final Fantasy VII doesn't become a remake for PS3 because we all know what would happen in Japan and across the GLOBE.
A prospective business owner as well as those already in business need to develop their working and marketing skills in order to boost their business. Sometimes, what will work best is marketing the novelty of your product or services. Dell computer, Tide, and Charles Schwab all marketed the novelty of their companies very well, and that is precisely why they are leaders within their markets. Tide, for instance, played up the novelty of their being the first synthetic laundry soap, and they are still the leading brand of detergent. The marketing of these companies differs from traditional marketing and is a great way to boost your business.
Well this explains the total overhaul of the dashboard.
The old dashboard was quite nice, but too confusing for a casual gamer not interested in having to spend hours merely learning their console.
And if they plan on advertising X360's media capabilities in their push to make it a multi-use box, they better make system/computer pairings a shit-load easier. As it stands, it's immensely difficult to get it to connect and stay connected.
And just because I hate it, CAN THE POINTS SYSTEM. Just make arcade games cost money.
The numbers are in for the we week of September 21 in Japan, and once again the Xbox 360 continues to outsell the Playstation 3 by huge numbers, even in Japan.
Excellent marketing, combined with awesome games like Fable 2, Gears of War 2, Star Ocean 4, and The Last Remnant are really going to make this holiday season a great one to have an Xbox 360.
Plus, I expect the younger people to be more interested in the Xbox 360 this holiday season when the new Avatars are released.
And it'll be a great holiday to be Kim Naroz.
Your posts still give me the impression your one of these younger people yourself. :P
I think this is a bit of a now or never moment in their attempt to "win" this ongoing console battle. Given what I've read about analysts predicting that either this year or the next, the PS3 might gain more and more terrain, I can imagine Microsoft will do anything in its power to make sure they have the upper hand. The Wii is still selling well - but given the fact that their games on offer still aren't that impressive, it's a smart move to try and win over more casual gamers.
Analysts can be wrong though and time will tell what will happen. I'm also wondering if Sony has something up its sleeve as they have been relatively silent. As for the Wii, I think it's harder than they imagine to "steal" their crowd - as the whole gaming experience on this console is so incredibly different from the one on the 360.
MS is serios. Can't wait to see how this is gonna pan out. Matt Matthews will have lot's of analyzing to do in the rest of the year's NPDs.
There's a typo in your post.
You typed "serios" when you meant to type "desperate."
Play nice.