Xbox One only sold 115,000 units in the U.S. during April

Xbox One Controller

Another month means we get another look at how the Xbox One is doing in the latest stats out from the NPD. Last month we learned that over 5 million Xbox One consoles have been shipped since launch. Those numbers were of course for March, so now we're taking a look at how the Xbox One did in April.

Unfortunately, the Xbox One didn't do as hot as Microsoft would have hoped. Maybe that's why they axed Kinect, moving more consoles really is important right now. According to the NPD, the PlayStation 4 was the number one selling console in April. That marks the fourth consecutive month with the PlayStation 4 ahead of the Xbox One.

Here are the stats for the Xbox family:

  • Three games sold per console during the month of April 2014
  • Xbox One and Xbox 360 sales combine for most platform sales and controlled 53 percent of software sales
  • 447,000 Xbox One games sold
  • 2.2 million Xbox 360 games sold
  • 115,000 Xbox One consoles sold
  • 71,000 Xbox 360 consoles sold

Moving only 115,000 Xbox One consoles during the month of April is not at all good for Microsoft. The Xbox One has not been the top-selling console of the month since December. Dropping the price to $399 for a Kinect-free Xbox One SKU will hopefully offset the trend we're seeing. Since that SKU won't be available until net month, it'll be the NPD report out in July that show if the move turns things around.

Source: Xbox Wire


Reader comments

Xbox One only sold 115,000 units in the U.S. during April



How many units did Sony sell? Without that number It's difficult to know if this is good news or bad news for MS.

If Sony sold just 116.000 consoles I'd say It's good news.

Don't know Sony's numbers yet.


But last year the Xbox 360 was the #1 console for April 2013 with sales of 130,000 if that gives any perspective.

I think to be selling less than the 360 did a year ago is still pretty bad.

Sony sales now being estimated at 199,000.  It's probably around there.

Still find Sony's silence a bit odd, given that they "won april" and all.

Supposedly Sony sells in 40 markets vs Microsoft's 13. Don't know if that really matters, but it's worth mentioning.

Wouldn't be surprised if the European numbers would be even more grim as Microsoft has chosen not to launch in quite a few European contries until later (October?) this year.

Lot's of the potential customers I suppose have already gone with the competition as it is both available and not riddled with as bad a reputation as the One, nor the high price or lower specs ...

Yeah, but that's on Microsoft and their distribution and supply chain.  It's nobody else's fault that they don't sell in more markets.

It's pretty bad. You have to get logic into this. You're comparing a fairly new console with an old and realm popular one. Not to mention that the price plays a big role on this too.

I don't understand why, with strict hardware requirements for the partner OEM's, Microsoft doesn't just license the Xbox One OS to people like Dell, HP, Samsung, Asus, etc.   


They can't do that. That would cause fragmentation, which would increase software development costs. The big advantage of game consoles over PCs is that developers only need to ensure that their software works on one device, not many.

But the Xbox one is run in a hypervisor. As long as the hardware could deliver the minimum performance ( maybe have it's configuration certified) developers should have no problem with continuing to support one device.

Certification takes time and money and also opens the door for a more buggy environment. Besides, microsoft already has a solution that does what you're asking, its called Windows.

I just think part of the reason Xbox One runs in a hypervisor was so Microsoft could leave the door open to a future computer that could play Xbox One games. Maybe a self branded machine at some point. It would make a hell of a differentiator.

Who would want to license it? If consoles from OEMs have to be at least similar in specs (I would say exact to keep the platform level), and the XB1 is sold around cost (maybe a little profit) with the assumption that money will come back from software sales, and the OEM would have to pay a fee to license it, who could make money off of it? If they still the console for more, no one would buy it over the first party selection. XBLG and software sale profits go to MS, no OEM could follow that model. If it wasn't for that and MS wanting to control every aspect of the experience and image, I'm sure they would love to license out the OS.
tldr: No OEM would want to license the OS because they can't make money off of it.

3DO tried this in the 90's. Panasonic and LG made versions of the console, all priced very high so they could make some money. Too high for the market, so the platform sank.

There's no arguing with those numbers. I'm happy they're offering a model without Kinect but the $399 standalone console isn't a good deal. Not when they were selling the Forza or Titanfall bundles for $450. It should include a game at $399 or it should be $350 without Kinect. 

What matters though is that it's now competitively priced against the PS4, not if this is a good deal win relation to past bundles. So even if it's not a good deal, it'll definitely boost sales.

Yeah it'll probably boost sales, but it would boost them a whole lot more at $350. Now it's just the same price as PS4 but with weaker hardware and a whole lot of bad stigma. If they could afford $450 with Kinect and 1 game they can afford $350 with none of those. Seriously if you subtracted TitanFall from the $450 price you were paying just $390 for the console AND kinect. 

Not necessarily, though. A price cut hardly helped the Wii U, if at all. And at $400 Microsoft should be turning a profit now rather than trying to break even, so I think a $400 price tag will be good for MS and in the eye of the average consumer.

I don't think it will boost sales in the slightest. I think the price reduction will only help Microsoft's sales figures from dropping as quickly as they have in the past month.
Without Kinnect, there is no longer any reason for someone to choose the One over the PS4.
Sure, there are a few more features, but WHO is using the One to control their DVR?
At least the Kinnect has the opportunity for Cortana like they have for WP8.1 - now they have no edge, just a few exclusives. People will move on.

There will still be the option of buying the Kinect bundle or buying it separately. I think it was just smart business to offer people options.

This, 100%. I enjoy the platform/ecosystem as a whole, so I am not going anywhere. But to entice customers you need something that is different, that makes it stand out (dare I say, gimmick?); I thought that was Kinect and the long term vision of Kinect. Even worse, jfreiman, Kinect is needed for cablebox/DVR control as it is the IR blaster for those. The xbox was built around Kinect.
I guess when the perception is that you are going to lose a war that is still 8-9 years away from being over, you make drastic decisions. The problem with that is, they made a platform altering change. This will change the entire ecosystem for the entire generation. For what? Possible - Probable short term gain? As you stated, when the software starts to mature, and when software like Cortana is available, things can and may change drastically. Well.... could of. I think that all went away went they decided to ship without Kinect. Just as bad as not making a HDD standard on the 360, like the original Xbox.

Edit: Also, I have used my One to control my TV/DVR since day one and I enjoy the experience quite a bit. So... This, 95%? :)

Im pretty sure exclusives were always a bigger reason to go for xbox than the kinect. I agree with you to a point but to think that some 5 mil people chose x1 over ps4 due to kinect primarly is silly. The controller of x1 alone had more impact to me than kinect

Don't know whether to agree or disagree. PS4 is superior to the Xbox one hardware wise. The only thing making Xbox one a bit better was the Kinect. However, pricing it lower than its competition may also have a negative effect on perception of the Xbox one. So, it's a double edged sword I guess.

If they had dropped the price to $350 with Kinect, I would had purchased it, even though it's a first Gen X1.

Superior? obviously you failed vocabulary class, in addition to not knowing what your talking about, superior is Dual graphics cards compared to onboard graphics. Your talking about a few games with slightly higher framerates than the one which to 95% of people isnt noticable at all and with optimization both consoles are the same for games. When you throw around the word "Superior" regarding the One and the PS4 , you do know your talking anout two barely mid range PCs and superior there not.

'what you're talking about', 'You're talking about a few games', 'you do know you're talking'. It's you're and not your. Might want want to correct yourself first before correcting others spelling error...

Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as "vocabulary class". Vocabulary is taught in English class.

PS4 has a 1.84 TFLOP GPU while XB1 has a 1.31 TFLOP GPU. THE PS4 also has much faster RAM. The PS4 is without a doubt superior hardware. YOU must have failed vocabularly class. PS4 hardware is better than the XB1 hardware. It has superior hardware. There is no arguing that, it just IS. 

This in the real world means nothing . You said superior, at most it's an edge nothing more. Both systems wouldn't even be considered mid range PCs. The PS4 slightly out performs the 1 slightly, that's not being superior. Please stop the fanboy comments and get real is all I'm saying.

I get what you are saying, sometimes you really have to look at the screen captures to see what the difference is.

However, when every reviewer who compares a game on both platforms says that the PS4 version is better - better framerate, or higher resolution, or more effects - the consumer won't look for themselves to quantify it, they will make the safe bet and go with the better one. Even if the "betterness" is very minor and other factors like OS interface are a bigger difference.

Agreed, and I will add the Xbox with optimization will run the same. When that optimization will happen we don't know.

"obviously you failed vocabulary class, in addition to not knowing what your talking about,"

That's an awesome fail right there!

I don't consider the PS4 superior. On paper, it might have a slight edge on memory and graphics, and it does a few games at higher resolutions. But in all honesty, we have very few games out that take advantage of either platform yet. And really, in consoles, it's not resolution that matters as much, but frame rate. So far there are only like what, 2 games developed specifically for the Xbox One, and it's still terribly early in the cycle for the console. Developers are still building games for the 360, and PS3, and making them compatible for the Xbox One, and PS4. Ryse looks incredible. But I still don't consider that game nextgen, nor do I consider TitanFall a truly next gen game either. I like both, but neither blows my mind away. With all that said, I'm still amazed at how good the Xbox One games look compared to the 360, and I have enjoyed all that I bought. Tomb Raider was an incredible game to play, Thief is great to, DR3 was just incredible and I'm glad I got that on launch. COD ghosts is great, TitanFall was amazing also. For me, it all comes down to the experience -- and the controller. I love the Xbox controller. I've tried PS controller, and I really hate it. And I also like the experience. Microsoft is really focused on 3 screens, and really I like it. It's all about the ecosystem and similar experience across devices and screens. I'm not thrilled with how MS flip flops on their vision. Nor do I see this as a war between Sony and Microsoft. If you like a system then buy it, if not, then look for something else. I like the quality of the games I've bought, and I love all the other things the One does. Microsoft improved on the 360 gamining system, while adding new features that appeal to me (like tv). Sony hasn't been able to compete on the entertainment side. It comes from the different perspectives both companies took on this generation. Microsoft wants to be a complete entertainment system, while Sony quickly changed to gaming only.

It's not something you can consider. It's not an opinion. The PS4 is without a doubt faster than the XB1. There are a whole lot of games that run either at a higher framerate or higher resolution or both on the PS4. It's a simple fact, not an opinion. 

Price isn't the whole issue, at least not for me.

As it is the Xbox One is NOT capable of replacing my 360.  The 360 beats it handly when it comes to apps, connectivity, media acccessibility, local streaming capability, and the like.

When the Xbox One gets to at least feature parity with the 360, so I don't feel like I am giving up something by "upgrading", then I will buy one.

I do agree with you on the media issue. My 360 can pull music from my NAS. The One, can't. I know Microsoft wants you to subscribe to Xbox Music, but really, why should I waste my bandwidth streaming from the cloud when I have a song store on my NAS? This is a serious step backwards and prevents me from using my One as a true media center device.

that's why Xbox One will have apps, you know, if Plex and VLC and others start making apps for xbox one, will you really think the same way? we know Plex is coming... do you think it won't work the same way plex already does?
but anyway, Microsoft might add it and they might not... but we know it will get plex, and I'm sure others apps will be available sooner or later.

There are three things I want the Xbox one to do before I replace my 360:

1. Media. This will probably get solved by the plex client since Microsoft doesn't seem interested in making the Xbox One as capable a media device as the 360.

2. Miracast. It was promised and I want it. It probably isn't needed, per se, but it would go a long way toward convincing me to get one.

3. Something fun to do with Kinect. My kids have a blast with games like Kinect party, games that have no counterpart on Xbox One.

At $399 it completely removes any debate that it costs more than the PS4. The price with game is already the same price as a PS4 with a game, but the base price being higher makes it seem like the xbox costs more.

Now with the same start price at $399 they could sell more bundles at $450 because the xbox could seem better value than the ps4 as ps4 would be console plus game and xbox would be console plus game plus kinect.

Dropping below PS4 wouldnt do much other than tell people the PS4 is a better comsole, plus they'd also be making a loss on each one.

It costs the same but has weaker hardware. That's not right. And they were selling $450 bundles with Kinect and a game. If they could afford to do that they can afford to include a game at $400 or sell it for $350. 

While I agree with the rest of your post, the first sentence cannot definitively be stated without comparison numbers from the PS4. The estimates of PS4 numbers aren't that impressive either, but until we get actual numbers nothing can be argued. Keep in mind these are only US numbers.

I am by no means an Xbox fan, but Xbox One does not need to hold first place to be successful. It just needs sales somewhat comparable to the PS4. And I'm sure the new $400 Kinect-less console will boost sales.

I would agree with you if all things were equal between the two consoles, but they aren't.
The PS4 was designs to play games well.
Microsoft did the opposite with the Xbox One. They made a game console that was marginally better than the 360 and wasted time, effort and cost into adding HDMI passthrough (which was doomed to fail) as well as the infrared dongle, etc.
The Kinnect 2.0 would have been fine on its own, but all the other useless features do nothing for the user experience.
It's sad really. :-\

Sony will never be able to match Azure, ever, and I believe this race will be won online, just like Xbox Live won many people over last gen. The hardware is comparable, but both consoles are rather weak. If you want 4k gaming at Ultra, you need a PC.

HDMI passthrough works great on my setup. Overall I feel that the user experience is debatable. If someone is looking for a better gaming experience then sure, go with PS4. However, I personally like and appreciate what Microsoft has done in creating a console that blends gaming and multimedia. People tend to forget that the first release of a new product or concept to consumers will have some issues. If the hardware is solid then most everything can be fixed through updates. I can honestly say that for the first time in many years as an IT Professional; I am pleased with the direction Microsoft is moving. To name a few, Windows 8.1 with update and soon Start menu returning (great to see them step back and listen to feedback), Hyper-V on Windows 8, 8.1 (instead of server only), Windows Phone 8.1, Cortana, and more... Although, I would have liked to see at least a 1-2TB HDD with the XBox One or enable the USB already! :P

Argh this type of logic drives me nuts.  PS4 and XBONE play the same games (aside from exclusives) at basically the same performance.  They use practically the same AMD graphics and processor.  But since XBOne ALSO does Kinect, HDMI passthrough, TV stuff, etc... why it must mean that PS4 is twice as good at playing games.  If I take the radio out of my car does that somehow make it better at driving than other cars?

Yes, obviously. The radio is an added weight so it slows your car down. Cars without the excessive weight of a radio get better mileage!

Thank God, I thought I was the only one that feels the same way. They are both video game consoles that are practically the same at playing video games. Peoples logic on this baffling to me.

You know what, I use my Xbox One more to watch tv then play games. And I'm also using it more to do other things that I would use my phone or laptop for also. I really don't agree with your thought about the Xbox one being marginally better then the 360. The speed that the console performs at and the detail in graphics is incredibly better then what the 360 can do. Games launch faster, I can switch quickly between digital games, and I can snap applications while playing a game. I use the HDMI pass through to watch TV while I'm doing mundane tasks in a game. And I love how I can say "xbox on" and it turns everything on, or "Xbox, watch The History Channel" and it changes the channel. And the guide is pretty awesome also. HDMI pass through may only work for outside of the US, but I'm in the US, so it's not a waste for me. The Kinect always sense me, greets me when I'm in view, turns on my audio and video, and changes my channel, pauses tv, and such. It all adds to the user experience, and the One is much more then just a gaming console that I need to change inputs to play a game. It really has taken over my HDMI 1 port on the tv.

And they screwed that up, too. Standalone console should be just $350. If they want to sell for $400 throw a game in. They're probably not doing that in order to still get some people to buy the Kinect version but if they want to recover they need to just totally stop worrying about Kinect. 

Agreed. Ill go one further and say that Microsoft needs to ditch the Xbox One and release a better console ASAP.

Yes, I'm very serious. You don't think MS or Sony for that matter only designed ONE console!?
They have backups and backups to backups.
They have had nearly a year since their failed introduction to put another console into play.
They should really release two new consoles. One Kindle Fire type, and one powerful Xbox 1.5

I'm glad you're not a product manager for Microsoft.  The "Kidle Fire" version you speak of is Windows 8, and more specifically, the Surface.  There is absolutely no need for a "redo" of the Xbox One.

Exactly, they would lose even their most loyal fans if they did that. Just need more exclusives, the halos and gears of wars are not even out yet.


six months in, this battle is barely started...   Let the Sony fans do whatever they want, but the first console of this generation I buy will be an Xbox One with a Kinect.

As far as those people that say this move by Microsoft dooms Kinect to irrelevance it is hyperbole.   Certainly it would be BEST if all Xbox Ones had a Kinect so that developers could be guaranteed Kinect availability, however it is an extreme assumption to say that just because MS releases an SKU without Kinect it is therefore irrelevant.

Roffle copters man. This is why your not a company executive. It comes down to options and to a lot of people $100 is a lot when you figure you could buy a couple of games and the ps4. Its what i like to call....MATH.

Again...the point is dropping Kinect is not for price reduction...the point is to get into markets that they don't and wont have voice control support for some time to come.

No it's 100% for price reduction. These numbers don't lie, people are NOT willing to pay for Kinect. They DON'T WANT IT. 

While us armchair critics won't know the whole story, I can guarantee you that your opinion is mostly wrong.  While it's always a good thing for consumers to see the price drop, it's certainly NOT required for the Xbox One to be successful.  One angle I haven't taken into account (for the record, I hate the decision of removing the Kinect from the Xbox One) is certainly localization for Voice Commands.,  This is the main reason why the Xbox One isn't released in the same regions as Sony, because Sony doesn't have voice command capabilites in their system.  You try building a new infrastructure for multiple languages, and not just for English.

I can't but help the feeling that MS mostly used that as a lame excuse. At least where I live, everyone speaks English just fine, even tho it's not our native language. And I can use my imported Xbox One's voice commands just fine. Thing is, Xbox One was delayed here until september or something, and I can absolutely guarantee that norwegian localization is something they will never do, which I totally understand, but why delay the console then?

Oh and btw, on my 360 I've set the locale to the UK, and when connected to Live I'm not allowed to use voice commands, but if Live or my internet connection goes down, I'm suddenly allowed to use voice commands. Just baffles me why they activly refuse to let me use it, just because they can "see" I'm in a country that doesn't have English as the native language.

If it was only for localization then they would only sell it without Kinect in areas where they haven't localized. 

No, it was for the lower price tag. 

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I'm willing to bet the CFO and shareholders disagree. If that were the entire reason they could have simply released a Kinect-less SKU just for other countries while keeping the original one.

Agree with you, But its not because they won't have voice commands for some time... They will not have voice commands ever...

In ireland, XBox 360 doesn't support voicecommands.. But if i am not logged in, It assumes US as default & all voice commands kinda work (accent issues)... So if they don't even support all English speaking countries... do you think they will support other... This generation is PS4 just like last... PS3 outsold Xbox360 worldwide... xbox only had a lead in US... But this time around they are failing in US as well...

All the special features for X1 (& kinect) are US only... they is zero benefit to non-US customers to pay a premium over PS4..

Microsoft release an Xbox One.5 with better APU and GPU and ditch the cable box passthrough support. To enhance snap view, add support for ultrawide 21:9 or 2nd display as well as recording cable tv from networked tuners such as Ceton and HR.
Add back Media Center Extender, DLNA.
Microsoft owns rights to every piece of the home entertainment puzzle, they are foolish if they think they can win this market with a $400-500 device that excels nothing.
-- and I'm a huge MS fan!

This early into the console's life? That's a terrible idea and would be a giant "fuck you" to the entire batch of early adopters.

MS isn't leading sales this time, though, which is the difference. So they can't afford to screw their install base.

ehm, well the plan was to make windows phone with NT kernel... but they just rushed and put it in CE; so no. its not the same example... although it seems they did that, the reasons are different.
the reasons this person is saying XO should get a new gpu and cpu, it's because he doesn't understand, it's already good... but developers havent taken advantage of it, because it's fairly new, and it takes time for them to full take advantage of XO.
so why would Microsoft pay attention to clueless people and make a .5 version? just because they think the gpu is not as good? lol please
they have plenty of time to optimize the console anyway, so games will run better and developers will just start using good the console.

but wp7 was just a rushed product and in the end Microsoft was planing to make the transition whatever happened. do you see them changing kernel anytime soon? no. but that was the plan since they released wp7, to get it known so people would buy it when wp8 was ready.

The main idea I was replying to was that they wouldn't obsolete their platform so soon because they aren't "leading sales this time". That's exactly when they would do something like that. (If they were leading sales why would they change?)

WP7 is an example where they did just that. The big deal wasn't the kernel change, but rather deprecating the managed code Silverlight/XNA runtimes in favor of Win(P)RT. If WP7 had been an overnight success, then Microsoft may well have stuck with and expanded on those managed APIs.

I don't see the situation being so dire with Xb1, at least not yet, but if sales fell below the WiiU, for example, I think Microsoft would have to do something drastic.

They can't enhance performance on new consoles. All they can really do it optimize the hardware to run cooler so it runs in a smaller form factor. Also they can update the connectors but there's no need as it is up to spec.

Whatever you are smoking, please share with the rest of us.  You are clearly high.  A better SOC?  It's the same SOC as the PS4.  Plus, where are all of the 21:9 displays at?  HDMI Passthrough is awesome, and I love it.  It controls all of my HDMI devices, including my DirecTV DVR.  I'm just glad you are not a product manager.  BTW, DLNA is there.  It's called Play To.

Console has only been out 6 months and is far from a finished product. They'll contine to enhance it and add features as they did with the 360.

Your crazy... I love hdmi pass through, I never want that removed... How can you talk about owning the living room in the same breath as saying ditch cable pass through...

And you can't go release a new console 6 months into the life, that would leave a bad taste in the mouth of ~5 million consumers...

I think you need to take a step back and calm down...

While the Xbox1 may not have as good of specs as the PS4, it's still capable of delivering amazing graphics. Once developers optimize it, graphics and gameplay should greatly improve. However, the PS4 will also be optimized which should still keep it ahead graphics wise. Graphics don't always win a console war though. Comparable graphics with good games and price points will win a console war. I'll most likely get a PS4 over Xbox because of MLB, but every system is more than capable of delivering great graphics. Including my Wii U! I'm waiting anxiously for Mario Kart 8 :P

i totally agree with you. there is no reason why the software couldnt support upgraded hardware. if youve seen the teardown photos, there seems to be a lot of extra space in the box. they could easilly stop production on the current build, lower the price on Xbox One, and release Xbox  One.1 with upgraded internals. I dont see it happening for a while, like a few years, but it should totally be possible. The One's OS is forever upgradable, and seeing that it runs on an X86 platform, there should be no reason why hardware ahould be limited. This should be Microsofts ace in the hole.

$400 without Kinect is a good move. Not everybody can afford a bundle. I'm on PS4 but eventually plan on getting Xbox one for the Kinect gameplay.

When the original Xbox and 360 shipped, I was quite a bit younger (obviously), so I had to save my money, and it sucked. I am not sure how I would react if I were me from back then now. Knowing me, I would have saved the $100 extra and been stoked, but who knows. Now that I am an adult, the $100 is really not a deciding factor in any way.

It's more of an issue of not wanting to afford it. At the end of the day, an Xbox One without Kinect is extremely similar to the PS4. I'm sure many people would argue differently, but it's true. So if you don't want a Kinect, why spend $500 on the Xbox One when you can buy a PS4 for $400? I think that's the issue MS is trying to attack here, not affordability per se.

Pretty sure that NPD (the recognized authority for these kinds of stats) includes all markets in their numbers, so it most likely is the total number sold worldwide.

Might be throwing a stab in the dark here but I believe the 'n' in NPD stands for national. In which case it would be for USA only

Here's what I don't understand. Sony are on their knees at the mo. A second straight year of losses...and not a huge amount of light at the end of the tunnel. Yet still Microsoft pussy foots about, trying to match Sony on price when their offering is technically inferior.
MS should have batted Sony out the park. They should have priced the One as a loss leader...a Trojan horse if you will. They should have undercut Sony from the beginning AND still included the Kinect sensor.
Microsoft have ridiculously deep pockets and shed loads of cash. They should have burned through it a little to cement themselves as the kings of the living room.

That's an attempt to kill Sony as soon as possible. Microsoft with all its profits otherwise can afford to drop prices and match Sony. Sony can't. So it's a clever way to dry out Sony of it's money. Lower prices from start would not make this a premium product. Now it looks like a price cut in premium product.

People here don't understand the benefits of competition. Competition drives innovation up and prices down. So I hope you'll be down to pay $1000 for your rehashed Xbox Two in the future, because that's what you'll be paying without competition from Sony.

Right now Xbox is not profitable for MS, so why would they want to throw more money at it when that money can go towards more promising projects? All Microsoft needs to do is stay competitive with Sony, they don't need to waste money trying to destroy them. That's why MS made the original Xbox in the first place.

Haha...price parity isn't going to kill Sony! They have the technically superior device...and with Kinect out of the window, Microsoft really cannot claim to have any differentiating feature.
MS should have dropped the price below the PS4. As it is, it is still overpriced.

The Xbox One has a plex client in develpment.  That's enough of a differentiating feature for this family!

and I am sure you dont have a xbox one... but hey its good you think PS4 has superior device.
but if you had a xbox one you would know why and what makes it a great device, and how it can improve more and more just like 360 was improved in all those years.
but of course, let's forget about future, let's just think about your magical present where ps4 is better because it's selling more in more markets available /s

1) achievement unlocked, you replied without using the word idiot on every paragraph, which for you, is quite an achievement indeed.


let's just think about your magical present where ps4 is better because it's selling more


This is an article about sales. Whatever the reason, whatever excuse, whatever "magical" dream you may have about why selling less is good, just face the simple fact: MSFT price drop completely invalidates your every word. Even if it was the choice of regions which burn MSFT (it wouldn't explain the price drop), it still THEIR fault for bad supply chain management.

If you're going to play the role of MSFT apologist, at least try to make it coherent with the MSFT decisions. You can off course hide under a rock and see the sales lead as a result of more markets, yet that doesn't explain why in the US market, the XBOX has been 2nd for four months straight.

What? You mean Sony is continually losing money right? Please post links to show the xbox business isnt profitable.

Microsoft currently have 53% of all software sales. That is mainly because of the 360. If MS doesn't emulate the 360's success, you can definitely expect MS to post consistent losses...(in the same way they did for the entirety of the first gen Xbox).
Xbox will only be profitable if the One sells. It just isn't. MS should have been more aggressive from the start - they should have had price parity.
As it is, they've alienated the early adopters...and they don't even have good word of mouth to show for it.

Without competition and a company with monopoly. That would mean slower innovation, less creativity and higher prices.

Actually, in this case it was competition that hindered innovation: Sony going the cheap and easy route by unbundling their (crappy) camera so as to hit a cheap price point all but killed the Kinect before it had a chance to take off. If Sony weren't in the picture, Microsoft would've been better able to push the industry forward by developing the Kinect and getting others on board too. Now, all of that is gone and we're stuck playing games just like we were in 1983: couch and controller. So, no, competition isn't always good when the consumer base is naive and one of the competitors is opportunistic rather than innovative.

You're tone makes it sound like Sony committed some egregious act. They did what any competitor would do. And to completely absolve MS for getting in it's own way and to not acknowledge that the consumers used their voice for change like they are supposed to (instead of chalking it up to being naive) is just being a completely blind fan boy.

They did: they retarded progress by going for the easy score. There is nothing honorable about that. Consumers, frankly put, are idiots. There is a reason Android is the leading mobile OS and it's not because it's the best one. It's cheap, safe, and unambitious. Exactly what people want as people dislike change. It's the reason why Windows 8 has a bad rap. It's the reason why the PS4 is outselling the more ambitious Xbox One. I want technological progress. Microsoft tried to take us there; Sony put up a road block. That doesn't make me a fan boy.

25 million Kinects sold over four years, but you still think developers are holding back all their really GOOD ideas for Kinect games until a few more have sold. And Microsoft, faced with falling behind the market leader, is holding back on all thier really GOOD ideas for Kinect games even though that is about the only place they could really leapfrog Sony.

Maybe Kinect just isn't good for games.*

* Besides dance games and Kinect Party type stuff.

I believe the number is closer to 33 million, actually. But 33 million Xbox 360s with Kinect vs. 82 million total Xbox 360s. If you're a developer with limited resources, would you make a game for the 33 million or the 82 million? The 82 million. That's what everyone did with Kinect 1 and that's what they'll now do with Kinect 2 because peripherals fragment markets and fragmented markets never see development. I'm not saying developers have all these great ideas but are just holding on to them for the hell of it: developers simply aren't developing for Kinect because it's a fragmented market. Kinect could be great for games and a lot of things, but now we'll never know because it won't happen. Sony killed it.

Sony didn't kill it. Microsoft did.
They could have absorbed the cost...they have mountains of money available.
Instead, they fought for price parity by ditching the one feature that really differentiated the One.

Absorbed the costs? Boy am I glad you're not in charge of any companies I own stock in. The Xbox One was on pace to outsell the Xbox 360, which sold 82 million consoles. Absorbing $100 per unit sold, even if the Xbox One only went on to sell 10 million consoles at that price, would've cost Microsoft $1 billion. That's a massively conservative estimate. Likely it would've cost them 3-8 times that. They had no choice: Sony played the boring card and Microsoft was forced to follow suit.

Sooner or later, MS are going to have to firesale their One's to get market share. By the time that happens, the damage will already have been done.
MS have had a fairly disastrous launch period...to then be arrogant enough to think they can sell their product at $100 more than the competition - lunacy!
Consoles are never supposed to be profitable at launch - the economies of scale over time bring down production costs....whilst the software sales bring in the real money.
The One is now in a poor situation. It has no hardware differentiator. It has significantly less market share than the PS4, & is definitely losing the PR battle.
Microsoft spent 7 billion on Skype and roughly the same on acquiring Nokia. Neither of those acquisitions represent good value for money...yet they did it anyway. MS can afford to play aggressive long terms strategies. They should be doing it right now with the One.

The Xbox One isn't profitable at launch. But that doesn't mean it needs to be losing money. Breaking even is the goal. At $499 they were already selling Xbox One with Kinect at a zero-profit margin. At $399 without Kinect they will be doing the same. I already explained above why it is foolish to 'eat' money just to lower it down enough so that every sale puts them in the red. There is a reason Sony is bleeding money. The company is run by unambitious yahoos willing to mortgage the future.

Why is it bad for Microsoft if they didn't sell well in April in particular when the four months before that was no different anyway?

War titles is what is killing the platform. People are war weary and sick of this obsession. Fun games are what the platform needs. Knack on the ps4 is what the platform needs. Killing games are overdone on the XBOX.

As seen by the first five seconds of the Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare trailer, this generation will be no different from the last. MS will again continuously throw money at Activision so they will push CoD more on Xbox. It's going to be another generation of stale shooters...

PvZ Garden warfare, Kinect Sports Rivals, Peggle 2, Powerstar Golf, and Sunset Overdrive soon. Xbox one has plenty of fun light hearted exclusives. I seriously doubt Knack which garnered terrible reviews is the reason for this.

At least the PS4 has Knack. 3 1/2 stars with Knack and PvZ with 1/2 star more. Big whoop. I mean PvZ is cool but my point is XBOX needs to be superior with family tittles. This predilection to be "on-par" with other game consoles is probably why some suggest MS sell off XBOX. Either act like you own this or put on an apron.

I'm gonna pay $400 - $500 to play Peggle 2?

At $20 a pop for older 360 games I missed out on, I could buy 20 good games I actually want to play.

The media options I understand are attractive to some, but for others, its all about the games. PS4 or Xbox One, I'm not dropping a dime on either until 2015.

I also have the unique situation where I have 2 HTPCs and a laptop in the home, negating all the media options from an Xbox... But again, that's just me and certainly not applicable to mass consumers.

Guess the studios are sponsored by the gun and killing lobby...
Agree that there's a good amount of sick killing and slaughtering games out there.

LOL KNACK!   Dude,  ive beat that game and it sucks ass.   Sorry but Knack is not what any console needs.  

That's not too bad since console slow down months usually start in March( since like forever). Now if Xbox 360 have sold 100, 000 that same month, then it would be time to worry. They should sell the one with Kinect for $500 with a Nokia L520-521(with a special version of glass) as a bundle in June along with the Kinectless one.

There are NO games for either system, this gen has been terrible so far and it doesnt look any better for awhile.

Dead Rising 3, Forza 5, Killer Instinct, Ryse, Peggle 2, Plants vs. Zombies: GW, Titanfall, Kinect Sports Rivals, and Project Spark. There are 10 excellent X1 exclusives.

imagine... xbox one has the "better" games, yet... 360 would be more worth to buy right now, since it looks great, feels great, has too many games available, gets new games. you are right, this generation is meeeh in games, and again, that's saying the one who has the better games would be xbox one, ps4... seems worse. at least ryse and ki3 and dr3 were good games to play. but I still see 360 as the best option for people.

Spinzero I was thinking the same thing.... Lose money on the box but make it up on services like live, music and video..... The Kinect and home theater capabilities are what caused me to start buying my games for Xbox.... I also own a ps4 but Microsoft has become my go to ecosystem

The $499 price in this economy was WAYYYY too high. Early sales of new consoles are always from early adopters. The E3 bullshit from last year affected these early adopters. Titanfall releasing on the 360 affected these early adopters and Xbox One sales. Titanfall should have been on Xbox One only and not the 360. 360 owners didn't upgrade knowing the $499 price, knowing Titanfall would be released on their "good enough for now" 360. Resolution-gate affected these early adopters. MS needs to kill it at E3 this year to get the masses to want to upgrade now by #1 with price ($399), #2 with must-have games ONLY on Xbox One. They need to prove that resolution isn't everything and show some kickass games and experiences at e3 so that these millions of 360 owners can finally ditch their old boxes and upgrade. Right now, there's now reason too.

For me personally, I need to see something other than the umpteenth FPS to get me to go out and pick the Xbox One. Other than superior graphics, what fun, gameplay innovations is this generation showing?

This is why I got a Wii U. Sadly doesn't look to be getting that many 3rd party titles, not that I'd have the time to play them atm.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, however I am not sure the $499 price was too high.   What was the price of the PS3 at it's launch, it was disgustingly high wasn't it?

Unfortunately Microsoft has shoved its' head up its' ass for the hundredth time over decisions it has made and its messaging to customers (ie E3 drm/familywide games/ and resolutiongate).   I wish they would stop that...

PS3 was still cheaper than most bluray players of the time, and it still didn't really take of until a cheaper version was out.

Halo sport center maybe? We will see at E3. Sony in a huge loss in two years row and MSFT rushing all way to consumer . It is like to toss a coin.

People don't need to have 21:9 displays, but it would set it apart from the PS4 - if you build it they will come.
There are 21:9 televisions in EU and Asia, we have a couple here too. We also have 29" LG monitors with 32" and larger being released right now.
Do you or anyone you know use your antenna/cable input on your HDTV? TV/monitor, it's irrelevant.

No it isn't irrelevant.... My tv is 60", I don't want to down size... You really seem to have no clue what you are talking about

People built MiniDisc and HD/DVD; no one came.

And yes, I use my antenna/cable input, as do most cord cutters (a minority now, but growing fast).

They should have just lowered the price to $399 and do a Kinect less console for $299. Make up the difference with game sales and of course more people joining Xbox live. That would make a huge difference sales wise.

So have there been any hard numbers yet for how many PS4s sold in the US in April? Just curious how big the spread was.

The war is a long one, and I'm sure they are going to kill it at E3. Games sell consoles, so let the games begin!

Looking forward to the games Nintendo has planned to reveal at E3! Probably won't come close to "winning the war," but getting some good titles can sell systems and help turn them around. Still loving my Wii U!

If Microsoft stays in the game with the current Xbox One, they will be holding their place in the market for the next generation - Just like Sony did with the PS3.
Sony made no money on the last generation.
Amazing how quickly everyone seemed to forget their lack of security measure not once, but 3 times. How they launched with Linux and PS/2 compatibility and then dripped each feature one by one, with every update.....

Why don't they just bundle the Kinect for free? Its not going to sell itself anyway so give it as an incentive and make games for it to get some of that losses

I think you forget how hot a seller the first generation of Kinect was at its' launch.   Don't rule out this generation Kinect yet...

They should've dropped the price to $399 with Kinect. They are going to learn the hard way. The goal should be to beat the PS4, not to match it. Now they split the user base and they're still going to lose. Very dumb.

Oh... So they're ONLY selling the$399.00 Xbox One? That IS news, I thought they were only offering the console alone as another price option. That changes EVERYTHING! Unless you need to revise your article... =/

No, they said the $499 version with Kinect will remain the main system they manufacture and promote.

I believe that game consoles are on the way out, like standalone GPS devices and mp3 players. They are all devices that are old technology replaced by other newer devices, mainly due to convergence.

I think Thurott has a similar impression, but I don't agree.   Even though smartphones are approaching something like last generation consoles I simply do not see smartphones replacing stand alone consoles in the short term or medium term.   AAA games still require too much horsepower (and too much heat) for a smartphone or even (I expect) an Amazon Fire.

Now about standalone GPS or mp3 players, I absolutely agree....    Some niche models of GPS's will still probably serve camping/hiking/hunting etc..

Then they will need to solve heat generation issues that I think will prove to be a significant engineering problem.    I bet that trying to solve those issues will increase costs enough so that the resultant tablet is too expensive, and potentially too bulky for people to use for all purposes, thereby making it no longer appropriate for convergence.     While tablets and smartphones will continue to increase in power, they may run up against engineering contraints in batttery power and heat generation that may at least for a time limit their continued growth.

In the end I expect that a larger device that has space for more powerful cpu/gpu chips and for things like heatsinks, fans or water cooling and such is always going to outstrip the results you'd get from a general purpose tablet or whatever form factor.   So while people will say that the current generation of tablets is equal to X level of older generation consoles I expect it will be very unlikely that we will EVER be saying X general usage tablet is more powerful than X specialized gaming console.

Therefore I do not see it likely that ANY general purpose device (smartphone/tablet/whatever small hand held form factor) will supplant a larger specialized form factor (ie game/multipurpose console).

Most people look at the price and decide on that. Those who love Xbox who haven't purchased the one yet, will now. Kinect is icing on the cake. Most of those who buy this want to play games. I think what MS is doing is a good move to stay competitive.

Premature doom and gloom. Let's examine some facts: Microsoft said in their NPD statement that XB1 (115K sold) + X360 (71k sold) was the top selling platforms combined. That's 186k total. That means that the PS4 + PS3 sold LESS than 186k. Sure, the PS4 is outselling the XB1, but not by insurmountable amount. It's actually close and that Kinect-less SKU might actually turn things around.

Lets see... Only 116k units sold, or a 1 Billion dolls operating loss by Sony... Which is worse?

Yeah, I want to see US numbers. Sony is a financial mess right now. It will be interesting to see how Sony responds...can they even afford to lower prices?

I still have a 360 and don't plan on upgrading soon. There just isn't that big of a difference between the two. The only reason I would upgrade is if games stop coming out for 360, and that's not happening soon with it's huge market share.