Natal: Greenberg vs Ballmer – Who is lying and why?
Conflicting news broke today from the Microsoft camp in regarding a new Xbox 360 set to launch in 2010. The news was around the story of a new Xbox 360 configuration with the Natal Cam. With two conflicting stories, who is telling the truth and who is covering up?
Aaron Greenberg outright denied Steve Ballmer’s claims today about the announcement of a Natal bundled Xbox 360. As Dave reported earlier today, Steve Ballmer, during an Executive Club meeting announced the next innovative technology that will launch in 2010 – the Xbox 360 bundled with Natal. Interestingly Microsoft issued an official response denying such claims.
The rumor around this new Xbox 360 has been labeled as the “Xbox Natal.” According to the rumor, Microsoft will drop the “360″ and sub-title “Elite” or “Arcade” for “Natal.” Apparently this is Microsoft’s attempt at distancing itself from the Xbox 360 which has taken on a hardcore persona.
On occasion, Ballmer has been known to eye Nintendo Wii’s success similarly to Google. As the CEO of Microsoft and a top business man, Nintendo’s success makes sense to him. Nintendo spends less than Microsoft on hardware and software development. According to last years operating expense report, the Entertainment division had one of the highest operating costs in the company.
Of course the Entertainment division does house the ailing Zune, but the Xbox group takes a huge chunk of the pie. The Xbox 360 has been doing well in the market but at a high cost. Its not surprising with $50 million checks handed for exclusive DLC and heavy reliance on third party studio support.
Ballmer barely talks about the Xbox 360 unless its to brag about how well Halo 3 sold. However, recently he has made an effort to speak about the future of the Xbox 360 on a few occasions. There is some indication that the major shift that has been going on within Microsoft towards the casual market may be spear headed by Ballmer himself.
According to Kotaku, the ever controversial Aaron Greenberg stated, “There will be no new console… We’re not going to be launching a new console any time soon… I really believe he[Ballmer] was speaking about Project Natal.”
This is pretty interesting as the Director of Product Management is correcting the CEO of Microsoft. According to multiple sources in attendance (liveblog and Twitters), Ballmer clearly stated that a new Xbox will launch next year and it will come with a camera that can recognize movement and voice. I really don’t see how the CEO of Microsoft would get confused about launching a peripheral attachment with a bundled new SKU.
Ultimately, the reason why Greenberg may not want the public to know about the new Xbox 360 configuration is quite simple. A new Xbox 360 configuration bundled with a Natal Cam will most likely mean that it will replace one or all of the SKUs out on the market.
If consumers catch wind of a new configuration coming out next year with the Natal Cam, (speculated to be around $50 to $100 standalone) then consumers may hold off on purchasing the existing Xbox 360 for a better deal next year. Interestingly enough, Ballmer may have spoken about his vision of the Xbox 360 out of zeal, but his subordinates are the ones running around Redmond putting out the fires.
Related Posts:
32 Responses to “Natal: Greenberg vs Ballmer – Who is lying and why?”
Leave a Reply:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register today!
June 19th, 2009
This has all the hallmarks of Sony when they began to screw up the PS3 because of in-house confusion…and while it’s easy to think that Ballmer and Greenberg have different interpretations of the word “new”, something seems up with this.
And if it’s not due till late next year, this gives Sony the upper hand in getting the 45nm PS3 slim out to much fanfare…along with a timely price cut and launch of GT5 for maximum exposure. Plus Sony’s motion tech is due out before Microsoft’s as well.
Xbox Natal fuck up > PS3 fuck up
June 19th, 2009
Who would win out of a fight between Ballmer and Greenberg?
June 19th, 2009
It’s probably just a misinterpretation between the two, i.e FFXIV exclusivity (which I have a suspicion will probably not remain exclusive forever).
June 19th, 2009
Lock_down : I think the slow looking guy on the right would win. The crazy f**ked up looking dude on the left looks to wired for my liking. He would get b*tch slapped down by meat head on the right.
Your right Harry. FFXIV will not be exclusive to ps4th wehen it comes out. It makes no sense for a company like Square to limit their market.
June 19th, 2009
Well we already know Greenburg is full of shit.
Let’s hope this gets picked up and circulated around the internet like the PS3 price cut/slim rumors have. Maybe internet nerds can effect 360 sales also.
June 19th, 2009
Andrew: Your right Harry. FFXIV will not be exclusive to ps4th wehen it comes out. It makes no sense for a company like Square to limit their market.
it also make no sense to limit the game to the 360 specs. Andrew if you didnt know FF Versus XIII is only coming to the PS3 so they are alreay limiting their market to the better console.
June 19th, 2009
I think this story is soon to be overtaken…
June 19th, 2009
You need to post the direct quotes in context to see what was actually said before you accuse people of ‘lying’, Mike.
It’s only common courtesy.
Show me the direct Balmer quote in context.
I suspect that when someone unearths the direct quote the whole house of sand this is built oin will collapse in short order.
June 19th, 2009
I differ, the guy from the left is already in battle stance with a “Ishowyamakungfu” glow in his eyes. The position of his hands clearly shows that he is a master of the “Pecking Turkey of the North” style.
In the mean time, the one from the right looks lost and confused.
About the article: I think this shows that MS hasn´t decided yet how are they going to get Natal to the market. I am speculating here but (maybe) the management wants to rush Natal, while the development team wants to study the situation as much as possible to get an optimal outcome.
June 19th, 2009
Roca – I don’t even know what the hell FF Versus XIII is? But what ever, it will likely come out on the 360 too at some point. And if it doesn’t, the next one will. Simple.
OPh and you said “better console” when you clearly meant “arguably more powerful console” 2 very different things. Good job I am here eh! Your welcome.
June 19th, 2009
“It’s probably just a misinterpretation between the two, i.e FFXIV exclusivity (which I have a suspicion will probably not remain exclusive forever).”
I don’t know harry. Both these guys speak English. The lost in translation excuse is moot.
June 19th, 2009
“I think this story is soon to be overtaken…”
Yeah, that’s why I came back to look. No one has brought it up yet… Activ….
June 19th, 2009
Blorge will be slow to post the Activision news. We all know how this site is sony sausage fest.
June 19th, 2009
Activision/Blizzard are like Michael Bay: big sales from consumers that don’t demand the best, just shinier versions of what they already enjoy. Sure it would hurt if they pulled sony support, but they are talking on a timeline that reaches ahead to 2010-11. If sony doesn’t have a price drop in time by then to move consoles, they deserve being deserted by the Michael Bay of video gaming.
Really, does anyone here believe the PS3 will still be $400 bucks this time next year, or in 18months when 2011 rolls over?
June 19th, 2009
It isn’t news. Official announcement of pulling Sony support is news. Talking shit about the future what-if scenarios.
Besides, they already have 500million invested in Sony… to walk away from that investment would be financial suicide.
June 19th, 2009
“Besides, they already have 500million invested in Sony… to walk away from that investment would be financial suicide.”
That’s right, they should piss away another 500 million!
June 19th, 2009
Well news like this just makes me all giddy. Imagine if that happened and Activision did do that and pull support. Oh boy would that be such a laugh fest. I look forward to this happning even though I believe it won’t. But if it did you guys might as well sell those PS3’s with you heads hung low because that would be such a shame.
June 19th, 2009
yeah that would be funny if the do that.
but I dont think M$ is going to see another Square Enix game after FF XIII. unless they write another 80 million dollar check.
June 19th, 2009
It would be weird if they maintained the rights to the spiderman series and it wasn’t on a PS platform.
All in all. I have one Activision game for my PS3 and thats COD4.
Tony Hawk sucks and enough Guitar Hero shit has come out that I havent played to last me a life time.
June 19th, 2009
It sounds like Activision is just putting on some pressure for Sony to lower the price.
How does the psp factor into this story. The price isn’t high at all. It kinda straight out contradicts his reasoning.
June 19th, 2009
CAD : ‘But if it did you guys might as well sell those PS3’s with you heads hung low because that would be such a shame.’
Don’t return to the old cad!!! Stay in the light!!
Theres no shame is buying a piece of electronic equipment thats success or failure doesn’t benefit anyone but the company who only wants your $$$…
Phranc – ‘All in all. I have one Activision game for my PS3 and thats COD4.’
Same (except for PC).
June 19th, 2009
Well I’ll echo what I said earlier…
COD 4 – 4.34
COD WaW – 3.3
Guitar Hero: World Tour – 1.2
Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock – 1.88
Prototype .06 (vs .07 on the 360)
(sales in millions)
Now when you take into consideration that Guitar Hero and COD games are all built on the same engine, and when you factor in all of the PSN sales for DLC… do you honestly believe they are loosing money on the PS3?
Personally I don’t own a single Activision game. I disagree with there policy of re-releasing the same game every few months. I do realize that I am probably in the minority and I understand that Activision is important to the PS3.
Kotick has called for a PS3 price cut in the past also. I find it pretty ironic coming from a man who has the gal to put a $200 game on the market, but that’s besides the point. If the PS3 sells more units, it means more money for this fat cow. He’s just being controversial to gain attention. There is no way he would walk away from the money they are making off of the PS3.
I think his train of thought goes something like this: “If Sony cuts the price, I can sell even more CODs and Guitar Hero remakes every few months”.
June 19th, 2009
I own two activision games.
Gran Tour for PS1
and CoD 4
June 19th, 2009
“Activision Blizzard won’t pick up games that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises” (Bobby Kotick 11/5/08)
This is the same guy who passed on Ghost Buster & Brutal Legend… and then tried to sue to block there releases. He is a grade A DickHead, who is only interested in milking COD and Guitar Hero dry.
June 19th, 2009
i wont be buying call of duty this year
I played world at war for about a week and it felt the same as CoD4 so i gave it to my friend
June 19th, 2009
That’s right Roca don’t buy it and add to the slowing support from Sony. There is one who else is in.
June 19th, 2009
Like Barnabe posted CAD, they’re hardly low sales figures, so its not really ’slowing support’ (altho i guess you could say 1 less purchase would be slowing support…).
June 20th, 2009
How come whenever a Microsoft exec says something that doesn’t come to light he’s lying, however whenever a Sony exec says something that doesn’t come to light he’s wrong?
June 20th, 2009
SW
explain this then
It is not a very subtle hint, although Mr Kotick says his company paid $500 million to Sony in royalties and other goods last year, which “probably still worked out at 400 per cent of the profit they made”. Actually, Sony’s games division lost $597 million last year, and Mr Kotick seems to think it may have to risk more losses if the £299.99 PlayStation 3 is to develop.
So basically regardless of profit the royalities take away from that and that last part basically says that if Sony drops the price then they stand to lose more money.
June 20th, 2009
Explain what? That sony took more money in royalties than Kotick says his company made? I don’t see how that directly relates to my sales figures post (in which i really just agreeing with barnabe).
‘last part basically says that if Sony drops the price then they stand to lose more money.’
Erm, they’re just saying what everyone here has been saying for ages – Sony needs to suck it up, drop the price of the machine and then perhaps it will sell better, and of course they will take losses on the hw.
June 20th, 2009
CAD
ur damn right i wont buy it. because there are more exclusive to buy during that time. but ur are stuck with CoD which i can get whenever the hell i want to
June 23rd, 2009
“400 per cent of the profit they made”
He is twisting words for dramatic effect. Profit is a net value. If 500mil is 400% of the profit, then their profits were 125million off the PS brand (500/400% = 500/4.00 = 125). Now, I am not making statement of their profit margins, but trying to twist 125mil in profit into being a drastic problem that could require drastic actions, is um, bullshit.