The game console industry is constantly changing, with the market leader always shifting and new games being released. Currently, three major players dominate this industry: Sony’s PlayStation, Microsoft’s Xbox, and Nintendo’s Wii. While Sony and Microsoft target older teens and young adults with their powerful machines and visually advanced games, Nintendo focuses on a family-friendly market with less graphically polished consoles. Therefore, Nintendo does not directly compete with Sony and Microsoft. The availability of content plays a crucial role in determining the success of game consoles.
To ensure the consistent release of high-quality video games, console manufacturers require assistance from third-party developers. Consumer preferences for a specific console are often influenced by factors such as brand loyalty, technical capabilities, and price. The availability of favorite games plays a significant role in consumers’ choice of console. Both Sony and Microsoft develop their own exclusive games and also receive royalties from third-party developers like Electronic Arts and Activision (ATVI).
Both Microsoft and Sony utilize a loss leader strategy by offering their consoles at prices below the actual production cost. This approach aims to expand the market for higher profit sales of related software, licensing fees, accessories, and downloadable content. Consequently, both companies are willing to sacrifice console profits in order to attract customers and encourage them to adopt their ecosystem. The combination of this pricing strategy for game consoles and the specific launch dates of each console greatly impacts the long-term competition between the two firms.
In the past, consoles have experienced a bottleneck in initial uptake due to higher pricing methods. This is often followed by price cuts to encourage more people to buy. When the Xbox 360 and PS3 were released, the difference in price and subsequent price drops greatly influenced consumer choices. The lower starting price of the Xbox 360 caused a rush in market share, but Sony responded with price cuts. This resulted in a price war, which Sony ultimately won with the highest number of sales but also the most losses. Most consumers see these consoles as different options and decide which one to buy based on its value for money.
The timing of the launch is crucial because many gamers want to be the first to adopt new consoles. The relationship with gaming suppliers and consumers is important because of the winner’s curse, which is caused by biased optimism and the unknown value of the object being bid on. This is particularly relevant in the heated competition between Xbox One and PlayStation 4. Both companies are trying to win over the hearts of the console gaming community, but they cannot accurately determine the value of the console gaming industry as bidding occurs before sales during the production phase.
In general, players of video games can be categorized as PC gamers, console gamers, or casual gamers. The PC gamers are catered to by Gaming PCs, offering the latest technology and extensive customization options for multimedia. This market mainly targets gaming enthusiasts. On the other hand, casual gamers, who are typically younger and less concerned with game depth and graphics, are currently satisfied by Nintendo’s Wii & DS or a regular home PC.
Both the PS4 and the Xbox One cater to console gamers who expect top-tier machines, media integration, and innovation. However, the key factors that determine success in this market are game quality and system price. Game quality is determined by aesthetics and gameplay, with processing capabilities influencing aesthetics and game developers driving gameplay.
Sony and Microsoft must assess the strength of their consoles as well as the demand for them to accurately forecast relative demand. During the eighth generation of consoles, Xbox One and PlayStation 4 possess comparable processing power and graphics rendering capabilities. Due to this similarity, predictions regarding demand using game aesthetics are insignificant since console gamers do not make choices based on internal capabilities. The responsibility for gameplay lies with game developers and publishers.
Both Sony and Microsoft have their own gaming development arm as subsidiaries. Microsoft’s game developer, 343 industries, is responsible for the highly successful game “Halo 4”, which has currently sold 4 million copies. On the Sony side, their in-house developers, Naughty Dog, have created the popular “Uncharted” franchise and have sold 5 million copies with just its second installment. In terms of exclusive content, both companies have strong contenders, making it challenging to determine which one will have higher sales.
Aside from exclusive titles, there are independent game developers like Activision-Blizzard and Square Enix. These developers can influence player behavior by releasing exclusive content on specific systems. For instance, Microsoft partnered with Activision on Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 (COD MW3). This partnership ensures that certain content will only be available on the Xbox platform, motivating players to choose Xbox during the game’s release in November 2011. The sales for Xbox 360 and PS3 in November were as follows:
COD MW3 – Xbox COD-MW3-PS3: 1.7 Million Consoles, 0.9 Million Consoles, 14 Million Sales, 12.5 Million Sales. Despite the Microsoft Xbox platform’s success with Call of Duty, Sony also achieves significant success by collaborating with developers like Square Enix’s Final Fantasy series. Ultimately, most games are playable on both Xbox and PlayStation consoles, and both companies strive to offer competitive exclusives for their respective platforms.
Games, like animated blockbuster movies, bring unpredictability. Even with a capable team of game developers, the chances of creating an unpopular game are not eliminated. This is evident in “Haze,” a game developed by Free Radical Design and supported by Sony’s PS3. Initially expected to compete with Xbox’s popular franchise “Halo,” the game failed to meet expectations upon its release and sold only 500K copies. As a result, the studio closed down.
Both Xbox One and PS4 faced production issues, leading to substantial losses for Sony. The absence of game development for these consoles posed challenges in assessing the performance of particular franchises. The appeal to console gamers largely depends on game quality, but Microsoft and Sony are identical in this aspect, making it difficult to ascertain which console is better.
Players in a common value auction may pay more than necessary for an item due to uncertainty about its true market worth. This ambiguity is partly caused by the limited data available on market competition, which is influenced by the recent release of eighth generation gaming platforms like PS4 and Xbox One. By analyzing past events and comparing them to current actions, it becomes feasible to assess each player’s competitive edge and strategic approach.
The Xbox One is priced at $499USD, making it more expensive than the PS4. The higher price can be attributed to the inclusion of Kinect 2 motion-sensing technology. It is unclear how consumers will react to this significant price difference, given the added value provided by the bundled technology. Notably, Microsoft’s pricing strategy for the Xbox One differs from their previous approach when they sold each Xbox 360 at a loss of $126, while Sony had a loss of $130 per PS3.
Microsoft is setting the price of the Xbox One to cover its variable costs and prevent a repeat of the price competition between Sony and Microsoft. It is uncertain whether consumers will be willing to pay the $100 higher price. In contrast, Sony is selling the PS4 at a loss of $60 per unit, priced at $399 each. Even if we consider the comparable accessory called PS Eye for PlayStation 4, the cost of Xbox One still exceeds that of PS4 with PS Eye.
Sony is persisting with a tactic of incurring losses in hopes of generating higher revenue down the line, although this could be due to an overestimation of future sales. They maintain optimism that by initially absorbing a substantial financial blow, they will eventually reap greater rewards and perpetuate their cycle of the Winner’s curse. In contrast, Microsoft intends to allocate more than $120 million USD towards marketing for the release of Xbox One. Assuming they achieve breakeven for every console sold, they would have to vend at least 200K consoles to realize a return on their marketing investment.
The cost of creating the controller for the Xbox One is over $100 million USD, which is only a small part of the overall research and development expenses. It is unclear when the Xbox will start making a positive net present value. Around 79 million units of the previous generation, Xbox 360, were sold. However, predicting Microsoft’s profitability with the Xbox One becomes difficult due to consumers’ increasing focus on PC gaming rather than consoles. Sony is facing a similar challenge. Selling each unit results in a loss of $60, so significant sales across multiple products are necessary to achieve a return on investment.
Sony and Microsoft are both deeply committed to development and marketing expenses. Despite the uncertainty surrounding consumer acceptance and market share, both companies are vigorously competing to gain a larger portion of the market. In addition to price and marketing competition, Sony and Microsoft are vying for early adopters by targeting release dates. Sony has a historical advantage in the gaming console market as they entered first with the original PlayStation, while Microsoft waited until a later generation.
During the sixth generation of gaming consoles, the PS2 dominated while the original Xbox had a small market share. But Microsoft was able to compete with Sony and gain almost half of the market by launching their console in Europe 13 months earlier. This intense competition shows that the outcome of the eighth generation of consoles will decide who comes out as the true winner in the console world. Both companies are clearly focused on getting their consoles into people’s homes no matter what. Interestingly, Microsoft chose to launch in Europe first, whereas for North America, this order is reversed.
Both companies are vying for control in their own markets, but despite employing different tactics, they both encounter financial challenges. Microsoft’s gaming division has consistently suffered from poor financial results over the last ten years due to the winner’s curse and price wars. There are signs that Microsoft plans to decrease its participation in this fierce competition, which has resulted in substantial losses for both firms.
Microsoft has implemented a new pricing strategy in an effort to attract a larger customer base. The company’s goal is to target the wider market and emphasize the entertainment features of their product, instead of focusing solely on gaming. It is uncertain what the result of this updated pricing approach will be, as customers in this industry are usually price-sensitive.
Microsoft and Sony have distinct marketing strategies for their gaming consoles. Microsoft emphasizes the console’s multimedia content and screen sharing technology to set Xbox apart from Playstation and offer value to consumers. In contrast, Sony targets the hardcore gaming segment and adopts a loss-leading strategy. This divergence in approach is apparent not just in their marketing techniques but also in the technical specifications of their consoles.
Sony is hoping to attract “hardcore” gamers and increase game sales by including a more powerful console despite the PS4’s lower price. This strategy requires considerable investment in research, development, and marketing to gain a bigger market share. However, unlike typical scenarios where increased spending leads to higher profits (known as the winner’s curse), there is no definitive “winner” between Sony and Microsoft in this competition. The product’s pricing and technological features are used to entice consumers into making purchases but may result in either no profit or a loss for the console sold.
The goal of increasing console sales in order to gain a larger market share is achieved through these individual transactions. However, both Sony and Microsoft suffer significant losses as a result. The winner’s curse arises in common value auctions due to incomplete information. In this particular case, the auction aims to boost the adoption rate of their respective consoles. Both Sony and Microsoft have equal motivation to win the bid since each customer holds a similar value for them. The only distinction lies in their individual valuations.
Both Microsoft and Sony independently evaluate the market value before releasing the Xbox One and PlayStation 4. However, this assessment has historically been inaccurate. In the end, the winner of the auction and the one with higher console sales often suffers the greatest financial losses. The seventh generation consoles, namely Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, exemplify this situation. Despite winning the bid and outselling Xbox, PlayStation caused a $5 billion loss for Sony’s console gaming division compared to Microsoft’s $3 billion loss. These companies can justify such significant losses due to their profitable divisions in other areas.
The losses incurred by both firms can be justified based on their competitive orientation. If one firm withdraws from the market, the other firm would have a dominant position and be able to generate profits. This phenomenon is evident in Olympic broadcast rights bidding, where stations are willing to accept losses to prevent their competitors from gaining an advantage. The reason for this excessive bidding can be attributed to optimism. Sony and Microsoft are essentially making educated guesses about their potential monetary success due to the difficulty in accurately estimating consumer adoption value. Therefore, the ultimate “winner” in this scenario is simply the firm that made a larger and more optimistic miscalculation.
Sony emerged as the winner in the previous generation by implementing aggressive price reductions and investing heavily in marketing and development expenses for their console. However, these expenditures surpassed the actual revenue generated from console and game sales, leading to a significant deficit of $5 billion. Both Sony and its competitor have been steadfast in their strategies, engaging in fierce competition to prevent the other from triumphing. Recent indications suggest that both companies have recognized the potential negative consequences of this “winner’s curse” scenario and are now shifting their focus to target different consumer market segments.
Due to the youthfulness of this industry and the fickleness and unpredictability of consumer interests, there has been uncertainty regarding the market’s value. Sony greatly benefited from the loss-leading strategy during the sixth generation of consoles, leading to substantial profits and prompting Microsoft’s entry into the industry. Consequently, neither company can withdraw now as both recognize the market’s potential in the absence of direct competitors. Another viable strategy for Microsoft or Sony is to claim a different market segment and concentrate their appeal towards specific consumers.
Nintendo’s Wii achieved significant profitability and surpassed the sales of both Xbox 360 and PS3 due to its appeal to a larger range of people, emphasizing the social gaming value proposition. In contrast, the Xbox One aims to distinguish itself as a multimedia hub rather than just a gaming console, with its level of success still uncertain. Experts recommend that the Xbox should be priced lower to compete with the PS4 and PS Eye bundle. However, given the past price competition and ongoing curse of the winner, it might be wiser for Xbox to maintain its current price position.
Sony is currently in a defensive position and cannot increase their price without facing negative feedback from consumers. It would be wise for Sony to observe Xbox’s move away from hardcore gaming and see if they can win back the adoption rates from this specific demographic. Both Xbox and PlayStation have been affected by the winner’s curse in the gaming industry over the past decade. However, as Microsoft tries to redefine its appeal and target a more middle segment of the market, this winner’s curse is expected to improve.
In order for Xbox to achieve this, it is crucial for consumers to embrace their new approach. If consumers do not accept this new strategy, the negative trend will persist. The ideal scenario would be consumers being informed about the distinctions between the two consoles and making purchases based on practical reasons rather than perceived value. Xbox’s decision to price their product at cost is a strong indication that they are striving for change in order to avoid the winner’s curse. Likewise, Sony is also experiencing reduced losses per unit of their PS4. With lower incremental losses per unit, it is hoped that both companies will eventually generate profits in their gaming divisions over the long term.
MarketLine (2013). Global – Games Consoles. Retrieved from http://advantage. marketline. com/Product? pid=MLIP0967-0005 MarkletLine (2013). Microsoft Xbox One: The battle against Sony PlayStation 4. Retrieved from http://advantage. marketline. com/Product? pid=ML00013-039 Sony aims at gamers with new PlayStation 4 console – Yahoo News. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://news. yahoo. com/sony-aims-gamers-playstation-4-console-151919184. html The Xbox One and PS4 share similar specs, but the devil’s in the details | Ars Technica. (n. d. ).
Retrieved from http://arstechnica. com/gaming/2013/11/the-xbox-one-and-ps4-share-similar-specs-but-the-devils-in-the-details/2/ Xbox One review: More than a game console, less than a living room revolution | Ars Technica. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://arstechnica. com/gaming/2013/11/xbox-one-review-more-than-a-game-console-less-than-a-living-room-revolution/3/ Xbox, Playstation Prep For Bruising Ad-Spending Battle | Digital – Advertising Age. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://adage. com/article/digital/xbox-playstation-prep-bruising-ad-spending-battle/242141/
