Poor marketing strategy?

I agree that the way they did it hurt sales. What i'm asking is do you think sales wouldve been better had they included it and simply not marketed it as a seperate entity from the console? Even tho it all came in the same box it was still "XboxOne with
the new and improved Kinect Sensor" what if every thing that came in the box, sensor included, was simply "Xbox One"? Would sales be better? I'm not speaking of games or how well the thing performs.

:)

 

Not even sure if I should keep it.

Syndicate is awesome, highly overlooked but a real good game. Great co-op, nice feel, polished. What held it back was EA servers and poor marketing.

 

No Specialization Code

Microsoft most likely got lazy and only sent it out to people who tagged to receive marketing emails and offers. Poor all around, looks bad for 343.

 

Maybe they shouldve said "this is Xbox one. It plays games" and let people discover all the other stuff on their own. Lol

 

@ Bird

Thats a good question too

 

The thing that hurt MS is they flat out lied about some things. Instead of "manning" up and admitting they did and apologize, they tap danced around it like a politician.

-

If they would have been honest it may have sat better with the consumers, including myself, and not have had their sales take the hit that it has.

 

I'm not sure what was so innovative about the original policies, it's been done for years on the PC.

The "crybabies" (or at least the majority of them) weren't complaining about 24 online requirements. MS was making promises that they couldn't explain how they were going to accomplish them. Gamers wanted details and they were non-existent (pricing models,
3rd party distribution for the all digital model, developer support for sharing, etc).

I think the biggest thing that hurt sales was the "all in one" marketing strategy. Just about every home has other devices (PC, tablet, Roku, etc) that can handle the multimedia aspects of the One, it's a gaming console...that's what it does that the other
devices can't, market it as such.

 

MS didnt lie about anything. Sony the one who lie hard.

 

@Ztrooper

At some point you have to stop drinking the Kool-Aid

I think we can all agree the Kinectless One has proven your statement incorrect. Something that was an important part of the MS "vision" for the One is gone......and that was never going to happen according to MS.

 

It's got nothing to do with cry babies funny wording by fan boys.......

But it's more about MS transition in 12 months as a company. Any one remember Don Mattrick ? a very arrogant know it all type of guy. A guy who backed Kinect and kept backing it. He's not there now so obviously things have changed.

If Don Mattrick was your boss, would you be walking the MS corridors cursing Kinect ?

 

Don mattrick was a bad leader for Xbox.

 

From a personal standpoint. It was a multitude of all the things that run up to the launch, but we had many a conversation about that, and it's in the past.

I didn't like the original Kinect, and i don't like the new version. Even though i purchased day one, i returned it because of the numerous issues from start. And i am now waiting for the new year to arrive, and a decent bundle for me to come along, Like
a Mass Effect 4 bundle. With a Fem-"what-ever-she-will-be-called" cover..... mmmm

I think they would have done better to offer a kinect version and a kinect-less version.

 

no, it's because the kids from Lord Of The Flies are running things at MS.

 

@ Hairy

I agree offering the choice from the start would definitely have been better than what the y did. I'm wondering though if they didn't market the kinect the way they did if they would have been able to stay a little closer to what they originally had envisioned.

 

I think they would have been ok with the Kinect. What killed them was price (100 more) and their ridiculously restrictive policies that they tried to introduce. Anti-consumerism doesn't usually go down well with consumers.