The January Console Numbers According to Bloomberg/the NPD [Archive]

Tyrant

02-20-2007, 11:25 PM

Console sales numbers for January have been posted on Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aeP6KYaQ4o_k&refer=technology) and I can't say there was anything particularly surprising about them. Here's the meat of the article:

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Nintendo Co.'s Wii outsold Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360 during January as consumers bought 436,000 of the video-game consoles.

Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360 was the second-most purchased machine with sales of 294,000, followed by PlayStation 3 with 244,000, Credit Suisse analyst Heath Terry said today in a report, citing NPD Group Inc. data.

...

Wii sales fell from 604,000 units in December, the smallest drop of the three consoles, Terry wrote. The Xbox 360 had the biggest decline, dropping from 1.13 million units while PlayStation 3 sales declined from 491,000.

Editor's Note:Thanks to Draft and Switcher for similar submissions.

wyeast

02-20-2007, 11:40 PM

It's fascinating how close PS3 and 360 numbers were for January. I hadn't expected that with the sheer # of units I had seen lying around on the shelves. Color me surprised.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 12:27 AM

It's fascinating how close PS3 and 360 numbers were for January. I hadn't expected that with the sheer # of units I had seen lying around on the shelves. Color me surprised.
Well, if you really look at it, they both basically offer roughly identical experiences in terms of capability.

Sure the PS3 is more expensive, but it's also got the brand recognition going, and contrary to the delusions of a lot of Evil Avatar, that hasn't gone away just because of a bunch of geeks on the Internet.

Deadend

02-21-2007, 01:14 AM

And the Wii would have had even better numbers if there were more of them out there to sell.

The Wii's price is also close to a small tax return as well, Nintendo may be able to reclaim first place in hardware if this keeps up.

DangerousDaze

02-21-2007, 01:22 AM

Scramble

02-21-2007, 01:30 AM

The PS3 running so close to the 360 at this stage in the game with hardly any compelling evidence for its alleged superiority is good news for Sony. If that alleged superiority ever becomes confirmed superiority I can see them beginning to clean up. That's a pretty big "if" right now though.

Still, it's early days yet.

Meh, superiority is in the eyes of the beholder, to butcher an old quote.
Both companies will say they're better than one another, but in the end it's the games that make them and they both have plenty of good titles out/coming on them.

Sorry for derailing.

I didn't expect the 360 and PS3 to be so close though considering price. And I guess it's the Golden Age of Gaming all over again for Nintendo. They really are cleaning up the console market again! Good to see!

Vandenh

02-21-2007, 01:30 AM

The PS3 running so close to the 360 at this stage in the game with hardly any compelling evidence for its alleged superiority is good news for Sony

Wait? So NOT outselling MS but keeping up is a victory for Sony? I was under the impression that Sony was the leader? Wii is outselling PS3 3-1 in Japan and 2-1 in USA (and probably same in Europe). Also Wii is outselling 360... not so good for MS but that extra 10M year start will help them a lot in the end. If Sony doesn't outsell Wii/360 2-1 they will never catch up. They need to start outselling both by 2-1 minimum if they want to catch up by next Xmas. Can they afford another XMas defeat?

Gorvi

02-21-2007, 01:57 AM

Wait? So NOT outselling MS but keeping up is a victory for Sony? I was under the impression that Sony was the leader? Wii is outselling PS3 3-1 in Japan and 2-1 in USA (and probably same in Europe). Also Wii is outselling 360... not so good for MS but that extra 10M year start will help them a lot in the end. If Sony doesn't outsell Wii/360 2-1 they will never catch up. They need to start outselling both by 2-1 minimum if they want to catch up by next Xmas. Can they afford another XMas defeat?

Keeping up at this point, when there's no compelling software out there, is something of a victory. Really, I don't think they can expect much more for now until the March numbers come around, when they actually have content out there to push the console.

DangerousDaze

02-21-2007, 02:00 AM

Wait? So NOT outselling MS but keeping up is a victory for Sony? I was under the impression that Sony was the leader?
No you weren't. Like many on this site you were under the impression that PS3 consoles were rotting on the shelves, so to speak. The PS3, with bugger all games worth playing that aren't already available on the 360, and twice the price, is keeping up quite unexpectedly at this stage in the game.

Vandenh

02-21-2007, 02:01 AM

Keeping up at this point, when there's no compelling software out there, is something of a victory
I should put this as my new sig. The bar is lowered every month apparently.

BTW PS3 is not keeping up with the Wii that was launched at the same time and still has the "new cool" status just like the PS3. Not being able to outsell the 360 at this very early (launch) stage is a total loss IMHO.

Gorvi

02-21-2007, 02:05 AM

I should put this as my new sig. The bar is lowered every month apparently.

If you'd like, go for it. For a $600 console with only 1 good game (and in a genre your main competitor excels at), that just seems to be the way things are for now. Of course, to state the obvious, it can't continue like that.

TrackZero

02-21-2007, 02:50 AM

Well, if you really look at it, they both basically offer roughly identical experiences in terms of capability.

Sure the PS3 is more expensive, but it's also got the brand recognition going, and contrary to the delusions of a lot of Evil Avatar, that hasn't gone away just because of a bunch of geeks on the Internet.

No doubt. Still not anywhere where the sales should be, considering it's only a month or so after launch. But it's doing well enough. Though expect sales to start falling off from this point, until some "killer app" titles hit the tube.

easi

02-21-2007, 03:18 AM

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2140/1170452608545yl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

codswallop

02-21-2007, 03:34 AM

Regarding Worldwide numbers: Remember that PS3 isn't even out in Europe/Australia yet. I don't know what the figures are, but PS3 will obviously have a large jump late next month. I doubt it'll get close to Wii which will probably sell another half million by then.

flinxz

02-21-2007, 03:35 AM

No doubt. Still not anywhere where the sales should be, considering it's only a month or so after launch. But it's doing well enough. Though expect sales to start falling off from this point, until some "killer app" titles hit the tube.
I have not been paying attention to the PS3 much. What is the closest killer app? As far as March goes solid titles; I know the Wii has Mario Party 8 and the 360 has GRAW 2. What will the PS3 have soonish?

TrackZero

02-21-2007, 04:03 AM

I have not been paying attention to the PS3 much. What is the closest killer app? As far as March goes solid titles; I know the Wii has Mario Party 8 and the 360 has GRAW 2. What will the PS3 have soonish?

Virtua Fighter 5 for now, in Japan at any rate. After that....beats the crap out of me. Metal Gear 4 and Grand Theft Auto IV? But they won't be out until October at the earliest.

TrackZero

02-21-2007, 04:04 AM

Borys

02-21-2007, 04:17 AM

Pathetic PS3 sales all around.

DangerousDaze

02-21-2007, 04:38 AM

This appears to be preliminary data released by Microsoft. All, some, or none of those figures could be correct - methinks we've been here before...

Scryed

02-21-2007, 04:39 AM

Pathetic PS3 sales all around.

not really if you consider the $600 price tag and that there were no new ps3 games released in january. When you factor in the upcoming sales from Europe/Aus and a ton of new games coming out in march, the PS3 is not looking too bad.

From reading evil avatar for the past month and all the negative sony news I would have expected to see the PS3 sell less then 100k.

Gorvi

02-21-2007, 04:44 AM

I have not been paying attention to the PS3 much. What is the closest killer app? As far as March goes solid titles; I know the Wii has Mario Party 8 and the 360 has GRAW 2. What will the PS3 have soonish?

Lair could fill that gap, depending. Motorstorm looks to be very good as well, although I don't know if you'd call an arcadey racer a killer app. The PS3 will have GRAW 2 soon after the 360 does, so I wouldn't call that the 360's killer app.

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 04:48 AM

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Nintendo Co.'s Wii outsold Sony Corp.'s PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360 during January as consumers bought 436,000 of the video-game consoles. Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox 360 was the second-most purchased machine with sales of 294,000, followed by PlayStation 3 with 244,000, Credit Suisse analyst Heath Terry said today in a report, citing NPD Group Inc. data.
Is it too early for me to say "I told you so?" Given enough consoles, there is no doubt in my mind that right now the Wii can and will outsell the PS3 and the 360. Even more interesting than that is, despite the oft-reported abundance of PS3s on shelves, sold almost as well as the 360. It looks like they're on the same sales pace in the U.S. right now.

easi

02-21-2007, 04:48 AM

Lair? HA HA HA HA HA. HA. HA!

Ha.

Gorvi

02-21-2007, 04:51 AM

Lair? HA HA HA HA HA. HA. HA!

Ha.

You make a compelling argument, do continue.

menage

02-21-2007, 05:15 AM

360 and PS3 selling roughly the same. I wouldn't call that a victory for Sony. The 360s out for a year already, PS3 is brand new.

Also the PS3 having crap software argument doesn't fly for Wii obviously. So that's not a valid argument, it's mostly how much you have to pay for the damn machine.

Most 360 users would be crazy to buy another 500 dollar machine with the same games. So that's marketshare lost as well (or you have to be called morron and buy Madden and CoD on 2 machines).

Wii has hype and a freshnesss to it. But where the hell are the games worth owning.

360 needs more than "hardcore gamers" alone.

Next Christmas we'll see a picture that actually matters.

Vandenh

02-21-2007, 05:30 AM

You know there are problems when even Borys trolls against PS3 ;)

rein

02-21-2007, 05:47 AM

torrefaction

02-21-2007, 06:06 AM

Grand Theft Auto IV? But they won't be out until October at the earliest.

I don't think you're allowed to use titles that launch simultaneously on other platforms as killer apps.

Draft

02-21-2007, 06:06 AM

Nintendo rises to heaven.

For Sony fans, suicide is the only option.

Next-gen is over before it even began. Prepare for the age of Wii-Sports.

civil_dead

02-21-2007, 06:11 AM

Lair? HA HA HA HA HA. HA. HA!

Ha.
Well, I'm certainly going to get it. I could use me some dragontastic flying. Is it why I bought a PS3? No, I just wanted to look at the Suicide Girls on my HDTV. Have to say, though the input system sucks a big bag of donkey dicks having that browser is a nice perk.
Most 360 users would be crazy to buy another 500 dollar machine with the same games. So that's marketshare lost as well (or you have to be called morron and buy Madden and CoD on 2 machines).
Well, this is one crazy ass muddafucka then, 'cuase I own both a 360 and a PS3. And I'm happy I own both.

You know, having both consoles really does make you realize how retarded this whole console war thing is. If I had big bucks I would buy one of each for everyone on EA so we could get past this crap and move on to stuff like create a petition for a new Fear Effect game. What's important are the little discs you put in the machines and whether or not your hobby is giving you some me-love-you-long-time feelings.

bean19

02-21-2007, 06:12 AM

It's fascinating how close PS3 and 360 numbers were for January. I hadn't expected that with the sheer # of units I had seen lying around on the shelves. Color me surprised.

I agree. I would expect that a system as new as the PS3 would have out-sold the 360 for at least a while.

menage

02-21-2007, 06:12 AM

Prepare for the age of Wii-Sports.

Then I'm going to buy a new television and commit suicide as well.

for a new Fear Effect game. What's important are the little discs you put in the machines and whether or not your hobby is giving you some me-love-you-long-time feelings.

Right on point on that one. And more games with nude lesbians in them:P

31 Flavas

02-21-2007, 06:17 AM

Next-gen is over before it even began. Prepare for the age of Wii-Sports.You forgot WAGGLE. Don't forget WAGGLE. Prepare for the age of WAGGLE.

Roc Ingersol

02-21-2007, 06:18 AM

Then when numbers come out and prove that PS3's are not just sitting on shelves and that people are buying them on pace with the less expensive console, you claim the PS3's defeat because it is not beating those numbers.
Those numbers don't prove that PS3s aren't sitting on shelves.
The 360 sold about 250k in January 06 and you simply couldn't lay hands on one. Demand > Supply

The PS3 is selling about the same a year later, but it's trivial to find one. Supply > Demand

And when supply is greater than demand, where does the balance rest? That's right - on store shelves.

Don't argue from an absurd platform that's so easily deflated. You don't have to. If you want to argue the PS3 is doing fine - just say "hey, it's selling pretty much identically to what the 360 did a year ago, despite the price point - despite a similarly lackluster list of launch crap."

KingGorilla

02-21-2007, 06:21 AM

Nintendo rises to heaven.

For Sony fans, suicide is the only option.

Next-gen is over before it even began. Prepare for the age of Wii-Sports.
Wii sports is why we PC gamers make fun of console gamers.

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 06:36 AM

I agree. I would expect that a system as new as the PS3 would have out-sold the 360 for at least a while.
Why would you have expected the PS3 to outsell the 360 with no stand-out games to speak of?

Mr.Green

02-21-2007, 06:36 AM

Next-gen is over before it even began. Prepare for the age of Wii-Sports.
I've been wondering that myself, but at the same time I have a hard time believing this buzz can last for very long. My feeling is that a part of the non-traditional gamers that are the most enthralled by the idea of video games as a physical activity will realize that waving your hand around isn't exactly a sport and the other part will get bored pretty quick and go back to sitting on their asses watching TV.

Now before you throw me rocks I'll just point out that I have a Wii and that my girlfriend just loves Wii-Sports and I obviously have nothing against the idea of expanding the market. I just hope the "real" gamers are still relevant to Nintendo. I mean, Twilight Princess was great but the puzzles and especially the boss fights were a hell lot easier than I was expecting... And now that I'm done with Zelda, what's next?

dimsumx

02-21-2007, 06:40 AM

Then when numbers come out and prove that PS3's are not just sitting on shelves and that people are buying them on pace with the less expensive console, you claim the PS3's defeat because it is not beating those numbers.

Wait a minute...so coming in last for the month proves that PS3's are not sitting on shelves???? :confused:

Vandenh

02-21-2007, 06:42 AM

Wii sports is why we PC gamers make fun of console gamers.

I am afraid that Wii sports is also the reason why console gamers think PC gamers are uber nerds.

Mr.Green

02-21-2007, 06:45 AM

I am afraid that Wii sports is also the reason why console gamers think PC gamers are uber nerds.
Oh ssssnap!

civil_dead

02-21-2007, 06:47 AM

I am afraid that Wii sports is also the reason why console gamers think PC gamers are uber nerds.
And pudgy. You forgot pudgy.

Vermillion

02-21-2007, 06:47 AM

That's horrible for the PS3. They are being outsold on both fronts. A console released at the same time is crushing them 3:1. A console that has been on the market for over a year more than them is slightly edging them out. And the Wii is the only console who's sales may be lower due to lack of available inventory.

Just boggles the mind.

31 Flavas

02-21-2007, 06:50 AM

Now before you throw me rocks I'll just point out that I have a Wii and that my girlfriend just loves Wii-Sports and I obviously have nothing expanding the market. I just hope the "real" gamers are still relevant to Nintendo. I mean, Twilight Princess was great but the puzzles and especially the boss fights were a hell lot easier than I was expecting... And now that I'm done with Zelda, what's next?We just went over this in the "Wii: Bowls Over Retirees" thread. Suffice to say, "[Don't] be stuck with this crazy belief that no one will make the kinds of games you like anymore if the mainstream enters gaming. That is just idiotic." -- thecrazyd

Borys

02-21-2007, 06:52 AM

You know there are problems when even Borys trolls against PS3 ;)

There's a difference between trolling and stating obvious opinions.

I will laugh my ass off when MGS4 sells roughly 1/10th of what Gears did in the US. And it will, much to my disappointment.

bean19

02-21-2007, 06:53 AM

Why would you have expected the PS3 to outsell the 360 with no stand-out games to speak of?

I thought their devoted fan base (that would pay $600 for a console) was larger than it is.

bjornbarspingvinen

02-21-2007, 07:02 AM

Wait? So NOT outselling MS but keeping up is a victory for Sony? I was under the impression that Sony was the leader? Wii is outselling PS3 3-1 in Japan and 2-1 in USA (and probably same in Europe). Also Wii is outselling 360... not so good for MS but that extra 10M year start will help them a lot in the end. If Sony doesn't outsell Wii/360 2-1 they will never catch up. They need to start outselling both by 2-1 minimum if they want to catch up by next Xmas. Can they afford another XMas defeat?
Totally true. PS3 is a new machine and should be a hot deal, being last this early is bad.

rein

02-21-2007, 07:03 AM

Then when numbers come out and prove that PS3's are not just sitting on shelves and that people are buying them on pace with the less expensive console, you claim the PS3's defeat because it is not beating those numbers.

I quoted myself. What an ego. :eek:

I wanted to point out what I actually said since it seems to have been misinterpreted. I did not mean there were no PS3's on shelves, I meant that they are not just sitting there like people imply with the, "I saw 40 PS3's in BB today, they must not be selling" post's. I guess I shoul dhave been more clear.

Draconis

02-21-2007, 07:06 AM

Looking at Updated Statistics on VGcharts.org and Nexgenwars...(Yeah, I know, REAL Realiable Numbers there. :rolleyes: )

Nintendo thus far has Half if not over half of Microsoft's Installed based worldwide by now. In 3 months. THREE FREAKING MONTHS.

If someone could actually pull together all the actual database numbers, that would be great. As I do not desire to pull Nintendo's press release Data that I posted a while back and add the numbers from Japan and NA into it once more to get an estimate.

But overall, Since VGcharts updates as soon as the Numbers come out, it's a pretty accurate status update I would imagine. One has to admit, to come that far in 3 months is just downright damned impressive.

silv

02-21-2007, 07:21 AM

I highly doubt VGChart's numbers. 360 seems too low, PS3 seems a little high, and Wii, I really don't know what to expect since Nintendo hasn't been saying much.

roboninja

02-21-2007, 07:28 AM

OK, this news is not doom and gloom for Sony, but it is hardly good. They came in last place only 2 months after their shiny new console launch, and the problem was not that more people could not find them, it was that there were not more people that wanted them. Seems to me this is the quickest time that has happened in a console release in my recent memory. There are two things to blame for this: lack of compelling software (although this is often the case for a new system), and the humongous price tag. Please do not try to gloss over the price point problem; the people that think that believe the price is fine already have the console; the rest of us do not.
All that being said, the news is not great for MS either. They barely managed to beat a system that is pricier, not visibly better, and has few good games. MS is wasting their advantage here IMO. A price drop of $100 (which they could easily do as they are already profiting on hardware) would see their sales numbers skyrocket. Even the 360 is too pricey for lots of people.

Magnanimous Gnome

02-21-2007, 07:41 AM

It's shocking to come in here and see people bagging on the PS3's low sales. Just shocking. :p

The PS3 did sell lower than I thought it would, but the 360 didn't exactly light up the charts either. Both consoles had fairly "meh" sales. It is January though - the real test comes later this year and in 2008 of course.

DangerousDaze

02-21-2007, 07:51 AM

rjcc

02-21-2007, 08:10 AM

the real problem for sony is that third party developers and publishers planning games for the next couple of years have no reason at all to design their games to run exclusively, or even better, on sony's platform.

dimsumx

02-21-2007, 08:13 AM

Draconis

02-21-2007, 08:15 AM

I'm sure once everyone gets their tax refunds back, we'll see some higher numbers on all systems...

Maybe, and that's a big maybe. For Xbox 360, and Wii? Yeah, PS3 however, not so much I think.

You'll see some of the hardcore holding back to have that extra flux of cash to get it yes, however, the majority I don't think will. Such money is better spent on other things, like Bills, Debt, or HDTVs or 360s or Wiis, or Car repairs, upgrades to your computer, I can go on and on.

Roc Ingersol

02-21-2007, 08:22 AM

The PS3 did sell lower than I thought it would, but the 360 didn't exactly light up the charts either. Both consoles had fairly "meh" sales. It is January though
Exactly. 'meh' in January isn't a big deal.
All the chart really shows us is that you need something crazy-good to move alot of units in January, and neither the 360 nor PS3 have that something.

And the Wii has it in spades.

bean19

02-21-2007, 08:32 AM

The PS3 did sell lower than I thought it would, but the 360 didn't exactly light up the charts either. Both consoles had fairly "meh" sales. It is January though - the real test comes later this year and in 2008 of course.

The only significant thing about these numbers is that the PS3, a very new console that is in supply, is not selling as well as it's competitors that are in one case very low on supply, and in the other case not a new product.

The 360 actually has the best numbers on there if you consider that these are for January, only a couple months after the other system's launches. The expectation should be that the 360 would come in a distant third for that month.

nate5881

02-21-2007, 08:35 AM

Some of you are not going to be happy until Sony smacks the shit out of the Xbox 360's sales numbers. First you slam sony for not having titles and laugh that there are PS3's sitting on shelves and nobody is buying them. Then when numbers come out and prove that PS3's are not just sitting on shelves and that people are buying them on pace with the less expensive console, you claim the PS3's defeat because it is not beating those numbers. I'm going to get a chuckle out of the NPD numbers over the next 12 months because I can't wait to see what kind of spin some of you come up with when you realize that Sony is not doomed and that the PS3 is not going away.

Why is it the only console I do not own is the one that is kicking ass? I'm such a loser. I have been tempted to buy a Wii but I know it is going to sit there and hardly be touched since I already have no time for gaming. I'm thinking of taking the Wii money and buying an Archos 604. I would defintely get a lot of use out of that since my new hobby seems to be watching television.

I don't think anyone truly believes that the PS3 will just "go away." Obviously, no matter how much of a success or failure the console turns out to be, Sony is going to continue supporting it throughout this generation. To go from incredibly strong sales leader position to last place, or even weak second place undoubtedly makes you seem like the loser. Even Sony themselves have said that they don't see success as beating out the other two competitors but beating themselves and their previous performance. If that is your standard for success, Sony has a very tough road to travel.

Now on to things that matter more...I just bought a 604! It's supposed to get here this week and it damn well better. I'm flying from Denver to NYC on Monday morning and I need something to keep me entertained!

bapenguin

02-21-2007, 08:40 AM

I look at it like this. Right now the PS3 has very little going for it. There are hardly any games
The games that are there are pretty much the same quality as the 360 version
At least one major player (EA) has stated that they won't significantly differentiate any of their games on the two platforms so you can expect EA games to look the same on 360 and PS3 in the future (or until they change their mind)
It's hideously expensive
It comes with a blu-ray player that may end up dead in the water
Yet it's still selling almost as well as the 360! What happens IF (and dare i say when) those bullet points start to fall away?

You have to remember a few things though. For one, the PS3 still very much has that newness factor going for it. Sales should be higher for it for the first 6 months before leveling off into the normal Console sales graph.

The only bullet point that will definitley fade away is the amount of games for the system. Of course under that bullet point is that fact of which games are console exclusive to the PS3.

bapenguin

02-21-2007, 08:42 AM

TheEpicOfTyler

02-21-2007, 08:53 AM

Actually this pretty much proves that the PS3 is sitting on the shelves. When your brand new console sells less than a year old console that IS sitting on the shelves...your console is sitting on the shelves right next to it.

It sold a very respectable number though. This problem isn't as bad as people are making it out ot be. It's not even a problem. It will a problem when the sales start dragging way behind.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 09:06 AM

PS3 also has another issue; Sony is selling it as a cheap Bluray player. That means that some of those sales are exactly that; Bluray players with the ability to play the occasional game.

That hurts the games attach rate, which developers/publishers look at when deciding how much effort goes into that platform. A poor attach rate for the console means they might not be as ready to create an exclusive, or charge Sony more to keep it exclusive.

It might become cheaper for MS to buy exclusive titles given their larger market share. Sony has to catch up with total number of units sold, as well as total software units sold. While they are doing that, MS has the advantage though.

I also think that MS has slowed down after the huge push for xmas-2006, possibly because of the rumored 360 revision. Makes sense to slow advertising, then push hard again with the changes and a possible price drop.

drakkarim

02-21-2007, 09:23 AM

surpsied that the 360 went from 1.1 mil to 300k in one month. i mean obviously most of those sales were xmas presents, but still a big drop.

BUT, that will probably light a fire under MS's hiny to lower the price when the new black version rolls out. as was said, sony's ps3 numbers didn't include any europe sales, yet. (i'm assuming those are worldwide sales?) so when that starts, the 360 will probably be in 3rd place. which will make MS unhappy and want to push more consoles out... (fingers crossed).

HardScores

02-21-2007, 09:28 AM

Wii sports is why we PC gamers make fun of console gamers.

Having friends that you DID NOT meet through WoW or a clan?

That's an odd reason to make fun of someone. One would think it would be the other way 'round.

motor

02-21-2007, 09:58 AM

I have not been paying attention to the PS3 much. What is the closest killer app? As far as March goes solid titles; I know the Wii has Mario Party 8 and the 360 has GRAW 2. What will the PS3 have soonish?

Sorry, GRAW 2 will be a good solid title, but it will have absolutely no impact of 360 sales. The first Mario party for the Wii on the other hand....

It's going to be funny to see Microsoft backpedal from their "Oh that cute little Wii is a great machine" to "The 360 crushes it!" once the Wii express comes crashing down on their install base.

Vandenh

02-21-2007, 10:02 AM

What happens IF (and dare i say when) those bullet points start to fall away?

I agree on that point and I am sure that PS3 sales will increase. The problem Sony have right now is that they are far behind and I don't see them solving the points you made this year (especially with some killer Wii games and Halo 3 on 360 in 2007) so to be leader Sony need to pick up steam quick. If they start selling like crazy in year 3, MS might not care anymore and the next generation will slowly begin to hype itself.

Maybe Bluray will indeed be the magic Sony are looking for?

sony's ps3 numbers didn't include any europe sales, yet. (i'm assuming those are worldwide sales?)

Nope US only.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 10:13 AM

BUT, that will probably light a fire under MS's hiny to lower the price when the new black version rolls out. as was said, sony's ps3 numbers didn't include any europe sales, yet. (i'm assuming those are worldwide sales?) so when that starts, the 360 will probably be in 3rd place. which will make MS unhappy and want to push more consoles out... (fingers crossed).

Those numbers are North American numbers, not world wide. Plus, MS appears to be targeting Europe/Australia for marketing hype, possibly introducing the new 360 revision around PS3 launch time. I think MS isn't having a hard time "lighting their hiny", they simply don't need to do that every month of the year. They focus it at critical times.

I do expect they will have some interesting news in the next month :).

NeoSuplex

02-21-2007, 10:46 AM

This is not a good trend for Sony... especially when all their System Sellers are 2008 games. How in the hell are they going to move units over the year in the face of Halo 3 and Price Drops? Unless there are some big exclusives coming out that I'm not seeing, I'm gonna say Sony is in trouble.

As for the Wii... I'm still not convinced it's not a fad. A quick look at upcoming titles shows little to look forward to aside from the usual Nintengames. Don't get me wrong, I think it'll wind up with a great install base. But I'm still not convinced that the system can handle modern games with it's low specs, minimalistic controls, and frustrating online presentation. I still see it being a side console that you bring out every so often when Zelda/Metroid comes out or want to play a four player game; just like the GC was for me last gen.

As for the 360, XBox got its one year head start and used it relatively well (compared to say... Dreamcast). Now, all it has to do is coast on that until Fall/Winter. H3's already been given a Fall release date and you can bet that MS'll be dropping the price on the current SKUs before or at that time.
Games are 3d now. A controller HAS to have a stick to move the camera, not just the character!

Tinderbox

02-21-2007, 10:50 AM

So last Jan the 360 sells 249k in a 4 week month and is supply constrained, and this jan the PS3 sells 244k in a 5 week month, isn't supply constrained, and that's supposed to be ok?

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 11:00 AM

So last Jan the 360 sells 249k in a 4 week month and is supply constrained, and this jan the PS3 sells 244k in a 5 week month, isn't supply constrained, and that's supposed to be ok?

Plus, some of those sales are units sold as a cheap bluray player; not necessarily an upper end gaming machine; the people who wanted a Bluray player and the sales guy talked them into the least expansive option. Those sales don't help game sales, and game sales is what developers want since they don't usually own movie content.

Draconis

02-21-2007, 11:04 AM

As for the Wii... I'm still not convinced it's not a fad. A quick look at upcoming titles shows little to look forward to aside from the usual Nintengames. Don't get me wrong, I think it'll wind up with a great install base. But I'm still not convinced that the system can handle modern games with it's low specs, minimalistic controls, and frustrating online presentation. I still see it being a side console that you bring out every so often when Zelda/Metroid comes out or want to play a four player game; just like the GC was for me last gen.

[Drags NeoSuplex back into an Alley and applies Nerfbat of Wii Unbeliever Smiting +55]

List of Games that are In development, that I believe us Gamers will be interested in, and due to come out 2007, or Later. Some may be in Japan only.

100 Bullets →
Alien Syndrome →
Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII →
Bleach Wii: Hakujin Kirameku Rondo →
Blitz: The League
Bomberman Land →
Boxing Action →
Brothers In Arms: D-Day →
Cooking Mama: Cook Off →
Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party →
The Destiny of Zorro →
Disaster: Day of Crisis →
Dewy's Adventure →
Dragon Quest Swords: The Masked Queen and the Tower of Mirrors →
Eyeshield 21: Field no Saikyou Senshi Tachi →
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers →
Fire Emblem: Akatsuki no megami →
The Godfather Blackhand Edition →
Godzilla: Unleashed →
Guitar Hero II →
Harvest Moon: Tree of Peace →
Heatseeker →
Kirby →
Manhunt 2
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Midnight
Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX
No More Heroes
One Piece: Unlimited Adventure
Prince of Persia: Rival Swords
Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
Red Steel 2
Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles
Romance of the Three Kingdoms XI
Sadness
Samurai Slash
Sonic and the Secret Rings
SSX Blur
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Paper Mario
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Sword of Legendia
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Transformers
Wii Music

Pulled from the Wiki, so take it with a grain of salt. Put plainly, alot of the list looks good, and I am pretty sure as of yet there are probably still some titles that are being worked on and have not been announced. We'll see what happens.

sprankton

02-21-2007, 11:20 AM

You have to remember a few things though. For one, the PS3 still very much has that newness factor going for it. Sales should be higher for it for the first 6 months before leveling off into the normal Console sales graph.

The only bullet point that will definitley fade away is the amount of games for the system. Of course under that bullet point is that fact of which games are console exclusive to the PS3.

Yep, the PS3 should still be in the "Holy Shit" mode for people. Like majority of consoles are during the release months. I just dont buy the "lack" of games arguement right now, because its so new. Also, you can use the lack of games to show that Sony is doing a horrible job and thus are stuck at 3rd for a reason. Either way you look at it, its not good. PS3 should be outselling the 360 right now.

NeoSuplex

02-21-2007, 11:36 AM

Maybe I said that wrong. It's not that the Wii doesn't have games at all. For that matter, it's not as though the PS3 doesn't have some great games coming down the line. But look at what's there: Ports. Ports that are ultimately going to be better on the other two systems. Sure, every so often you get some cool stuff like No More Heroes, but for every one of those, there's a Red Steel. Hell, NMH might BE a Red Steel. We still don't know if or when teams are going to start making quality Wii Games en masse.

Which brings me to a second point. I don't think anyone would argue that games that aren't made specifically with the Wii in mind aren't going to be as good as the other versions, correct? Well, that may be fine and well in the Handheld Sphere where there has effectively been just one platform for a looong time, but that stuff won't fly for a console. Sony and Microsoft aren't going away no matter how many units Nintendo moves. Worse still, Publishers can look at the two systems as virtually the same when deciding how to design a game, meaning games are likely still going to be designed with 10DS controllers and High Fidelity in mind and then scaled back for the Wii.

Now, all you hardcore gamers, who (even though casual gamers may decide what titles pop up on Bestselling lists) make up more than 50% of this industry's revenue. Can you survive on Zelda, No More Heroes, and weak ass ports alone? Cause if not, you will be buying a PS360 thus helping to seal the Wii as yet another Side Console.

Draconis

02-21-2007, 12:35 PM

Which brings me to a second point. I don't think anyone would argue that games that aren't made specifically with the Wii in mind aren't going to be as good as the other versions, correct? Well, that may be fine and well in the Handheld Sphere where there has effectively been just one platform for a looong time, but that stuff won't fly for a console. Sony and Microsoft aren't going away no matter how many units Nintendo moves. Worse still, Publishers can look at the two systems as virtually the same when deciding how to design a game, meaning games are likely still going to be designed with 10DS controllers and High Fidelity in mind and then scaled back for the Wii.

Emphasis Mine:

Your argument that I quoted, in the context of which you are trying to have foresight into the future and state what is to you, a belief, rather then a known fact. Thusly, it is a very weak argument that you are standing upon your soap box for, with which you try to get the masses agreeing with you when you have no evidence to support such in ample amounts.

EA has proven you wrong already with Madden 2007 for the Wii, a game that many reviewers liked and complimented well. Other companies are working on ports for the Wii, and I have a feeling they will do well. Some development houses are having a specific branch of their operations develop their Wii specific games, thus ensuring quality.

Just because it's a port, does NOT mean it is going to suck before it even hits the shelves. You are taking a view that quite frankly, is illogical and obviously based on stereotype.

Simple Analogy for some. I have an Xbox 360, a PS2, and a Nintendo Wii. Aside from that, I have pretty much every gaming Console in Existance.

Xbox 360: 3 Games total that I and my GF own. That's it. The system doesn't offer much that I don't consider a rehash. Dead Rising is mine. The one game I bought the system for. My GF picked up Lego Star wars II and I bought her Viva Pinata as a gift.

Nintendo Wii: 9 Games total that I own. Soon to be alot more.

If anything, the very argument you are putting forth is also your achilles heel, because by that very logic, the 360 and PS3 has very few unique games, and mostly rehashes and *gasp* Crappy ports.

Personally, I'm sick of all the rehashed sequels, sports game 20 billion year whatever with the end all be all PENULTIMATE FOOTBALL GUY!!!, FIRST PERSON SHOOTER BLOOD BATH XIIIIIIIIIIII! and on and on and on.

And I consider myself a Hardcore Gamer. But Intelligent and Smart enough to place my money where I think I will get my value. Right now, that's Nintendo. And I honestly don't see that changing. The list I posted shows enough good games that are coming down the pipeline that counteract your argument to a good extent.

RorschachCCCLX

02-21-2007, 12:50 PM

drakkarim

02-21-2007, 12:51 PM

to each their own, i plan on getting a 360, once the price drops. the ps3 is too pricey and will be probably for quite a long time. the 360 WILL be getting a price drop sometime this year. the wii unfortunately i just can't stomach on a high res projector. plus just not that many games that i'd play on it (zelda is about the only thing i'd touch).

bapenguin

02-21-2007, 12:51 PM

So last Jan the 360 sells 249k in a 4 week month and is supply constrained, and this jan the PS3 sells 244k in a 5 week month, isn't supply constrained, and that's supposed to be ok?

Very well put. Concise and to the point.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 01:14 PM

this simply confirms my long held belief that Sony is pulling ahead of its rival, fueled by brand recognition and consumer ignorance. for a system that has nearly no games out for it to be outselling a rival and nearly identical system that sells for 200 less is bad news for Microsoft. At least if their goal was to win this round against Sony.

Where does it say that the PS3 is outselling the 360? I looked at the numbers and it looks like the 360 is selling 20% more in North America than the "newest bestest ever!", and some of those sales weren't for the PS3 as a video console, but as a cheap Bluray player.

On top of that, the PS3 is only available in Japan and North America, and in those two markets combined they are almost identical for sales. PS3 sells about 15,000 units a week more in Japan than the 360, MS sells about 50,000 more a month in North America. But, all that time MS is selling in the rest of the world as well, plus has its 1 year market entry lead.

And, even though we are hearing all sorts of stories about how the PS3 is doing huge preorders in Europe, its odd that even right this moment Amazon.co.uk still has the preorders open. Its been that way for about a week, as I recall. The Wii sold out within minutes.

Given that the PS3 can be bought either as a Bluray player or as a console as the primary function, I think the sales are very, very weak. Weak, in North America, Japan, and for preorders in Europe.

vherub

02-21-2007, 01:36 PM

where's the historical context? The ps and ps2 really ramped up when the price dropped and it became a mainstream product. This isn't a videogame thing, it is an electronic thing, once dvd players dropped below $200, they started getting huge sales.
the wii is at a great price AND its gameplay is accessible not just to 30% of the population, but at least twice that.
At the moment, bluray is an unknown, it could be a system seller, it could be a superaudio noose.
Not that the wii is flawless, it has its own issues. But it is the closest videogame system (in potential) to becoming a toaster, a fridge or another electronic device that everyone has.

drakkarim

02-21-2007, 01:43 PM

Not that the wii is flawless, it has its own issues. But it is the closest videogame system (in potential) to becoming a toaster, a fridge or another electronic device that everyone has.

sadly, i am not high tech enough to own a toaster :( although i finally broke down and bought a fridge, as the neighbors were giving me looks all the time for keeping my meat out in the snow igloo i built (during the summers I just go vegan).

Kelegacy

02-21-2007, 01:45 PM

I should put this as my new sig. The bar is lowered every month apparently.

Well, to be fair, the 360 had little compelling software until GRAW or Oblivion. Those were spring titles, so there is still time for the PS3 to catch up.

I still loved Kameo, but it wasn't a system seller. At least Resistance came out at launch, which was probably the only reason people would have had to buy a PS3.

DaXIthR

02-21-2007, 02:15 PM

It seems everyone agrees that the PS3 is selling on brand recognition alone. They have nothing else going for it. Resistance isn't worth the price of admission on a $300 console.

The debate here is whether that is a good or bad thing for Sony; for Microsoft; for the industry...

We know the 360 has an attach rate near 5. We know the Wii has one near 3. Would someone come out and tell us what the PS3's is?

In the meantime, congrats to Nintendo for it's good work in all the regions. That said, why isn't the DS Lite more popular in North America?

NeoSuplex

02-21-2007, 02:31 PM

Emphasis Mine:

Your argument that I quoted, in the context of which you are trying to have foresight into the future and state what is to you, a belief, rather then a known fact. Thusly, it is a very weak argument that you are standing upon your soap box for, with which you try to get the masses agreeing with you when you have no evidence to support such in ample amounts.

EA has proven you wrong already with Madden 2007 for the Wii, a game that many reviewers liked and complimented well. Other companies are working on ports for the Wii, and I have a feeling they will do well. Some development houses are having a specific branch of their operations develop their Wii specific games, thus ensuring quality.

Just because it's a port, does NOT mean it is going to suck before it even hits the shelves. You are taking a view that quite frankly, is illogical and obviously based on stereotype.

Sorry, but we're past the theory point now. We'll even use your example: Wii Madden '07. Are you really ready to say that Madden is better on the Wii than it is on the 360? The game with no online play, lower qraphical quality and (IMHO) gimmicky controls? Sorry, but the 360 version just looks and plays
better. There are a few others I can think of off the top of my head (Far Cry, anyone?) but I'll stop there for now.

Even worse of a problem is the new trend of skipping the Wii for Next Gen games. What do Virtua Fighter 5, Fuel of War, Unreal Tournament, Assasin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto have in common? The lack of a Wii release. If you want to play any of these title, be prepared to get a system besides just the Wii. As long as the Wii keeps missing/having weaker versions of Multiplatform titles, it won't be able to stand alone in the living room.

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 02:55 PM

Very well put. Concise and to the point.
Here's what I'd like to know: considering how similar the PS3 and 360 sales have been to this date, those who have made no bones about their console/company preference have insisted that the biggest difference in these two scenarios is supply. I remember getting into several of these same arguments last year, and my stance on the 360 is that even with greater supply, I didn't believe the sales would rise (of course, excluding an improved library). I wonder if 360 sales increased significantly in the month or two after the supply increased? I would bet it didn't, but I just got in and don't quite have the time to look back at the charts for 2006. Anyone have this data handy?

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 02:58 PM

I just dont buy the "lack" of games arguement right now, because its so new.
This argument is unfathomable to me. If this is your rationale, why did the 360 routinely get beat in the charts month after month by the PS2 as late as last fall?

Tohoya

02-21-2007, 03:01 PM

People saying this is a good thing for Sony, what exactly do you expect to change? Sony's library is going to improve, but they've got nothing as major as Halo 3 coming out, and the 360 is in a much better position to price cut sometime soon.

Tinderbox

02-21-2007, 03:08 PM

Here's what I'd like to know: considering how similar the PS3 and 360 sales have been to this date, those who have made no bones about their console/company preference have insisted that the biggest difference in these two scenarios is supply. I remember getting into several of these same arguments last year, and my stance on the 360 is that even with greater supply, I didn't believe the sales would rise (of course, excluding an improved library). I wonder if 360 sales increased significantly in the month or two after the supply increased? I would bet it didn't, but I just got in and don't quite have the time to look back at the charts for 2006. Anyone have this data handy?

In mar 2006 xbox 360 had sales under 200k. April, which was the 1st month that supply was readily available, sales were 295k.

Apr 2006 NPD (http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=457462&page=0)

Tohoya

02-21-2007, 03:13 PM

bean19

02-21-2007, 03:16 PM

Here's what I'd like to know: considering how similar the PS3 and 360 sales have been to this date, those who have made no bones about their console/company preference have insisted that the biggest difference in these two scenarios is supply. I remember getting into several of these same arguments last year, and my stance on the 360 is that even with greater supply, I didn't believe the sales would rise (of course, excluding an improved library). I wonder if 360 sales increased significantly in the month or two after the supply increased? I would bet it didn't, but I just got in and don't quite have the time to look back at the charts for 2006. Anyone have this data handy?

Nope. It didn't really get a burst after the supply was fulfilled. Interesting point.

http://www.vgcharts.com/page3.html

After looking a this chart, it becomes apparent that the 360 is actually under-performing the Xbox. That's really interesting and odd.

I'd say that even without Halo, the total game library for the 360 is BETTER than the library for the Xbox one year after it's launch. I guess you have to blame it's negative image in Japan and the high cost? Maybe they are fighting negative brand recognition in the U.S. too.

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 03:29 PM

In mar 2006 xbox 360 had sales under 200k. April, which was the 1st month that supply was readily available, sales were 295k.

Apr 2006 NPD (http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=457462&page=0)
Bean19 actually posted the link with much more descriptive info. If April was the time when more systems became available, and availability is what held the 360 back, I'd love for someone to explain this breakdown:

February 06: 161,000
March 06: 192,000
April 06: 295,381
May 06: 221,000
June 06: 277,000
July 06: 206,000

I'm sorry, but those numbers are not suggestive of the masses busting down the gates, now that the system was in greater availability. I mean, the sales actually get worse after the first month of so-called mass availability. You know what I can bet you those sales numbers do correlate strongly with? Software releases. If you look at the rest of the chart, you'll see sales are stagnant right through Summer until November (with a slight, but marginal spike in September). Can anyone tell me what games came out that might have caused that? Anyone?

So again, I am wondering how people can argue that the PS3's performance in sales is somehow significantly worse than what the 360 was doing?

Tinderbox

02-21-2007, 03:30 PM

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 03:31 PM

Nope. It didn't really get a burst after the supply was fulfilled. Interesting point.

http://www.vgcharts.com/page3.html

After looking a this chart, it becomes apparent that the 360 is actually under-performing the Xbox. That's really interesting and odd.

I'd say that even without Halo, the total game library for the 360 is BETTER than the library for the Xbox one year after it's launch. I guess you have to blame it's negative image in Japan and the high cost? Maybe they are fighting negative brand recognition in the U.S. too.
I think they pissed off their customers by dumping the original too early.

Sales had been climbing on the original Xbox continuously, new games were coming out constantly that made it abundantly clear that it's capabilities still had yet to be full exploited.

And then they just up and dumped it. Dropped it like a stone and dumpeda machine that at this point was $100-200 more than it's predecessor on everyone's lap, and that didn't even at least offer the decency to fully support the games it had unceremoniously dumped support for.

The 360 was too damn early.

Zanzibar

02-21-2007, 03:41 PM

The 360 was too damn early.
I don't disagree from a gamer's standpoint, but Jesus, I think people would be hard-pressed to find fault with MS's blueprint for next-gen success.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 03:47 PM

I don't disagree from a gamer's standpoint, but Jesus, I think people would be hard-pressed to find fault with MS's blueprint for next-gen success.
I think your bias is showing if you honestly believe that.

They did some really, really stupid shit.

Cutting off what had been an ever-growing fanbase? Check.

Dismal launch line-up? Check.

Lack of console availability at launch? Check.

Incomplete backwards compatibility? Check.

Dual SKUs? Check.

Deliberately hampering their own Live efforts, thanks to said dual SKUs? Check.

Strangling your own online market by throttling XBLA releases? Check.

Major hardware failure rate? Check.

The 360 launch is full of all kinds of "things you shouldn't do", don't kid yourself for a second.

It's just considered kosher on this site to completely ignore them and pretend they don't exist or aren't a problem.

ECM

02-21-2007, 03:54 PM

[b] That said, why isn't the DS Lite more popular in North America?

Being sold out till mid-January is probably a pretty good indicator that it IS pretty damn popular in NA--YMMV, however.

It's just considered kosher on this site to completely ignore them and pretend they don't exist or aren't a problem.

Ah, the sweet smell of the God's honest truth...

Draconis

02-21-2007, 04:00 PM

Sorry, but we're past the theory point now. We'll even use your example: Wii Madden '07. Are you really ready to say that Madden is better on the Wii than it is on the 360? The game with no online play, lower qraphical quality and (IMHO) gimmicky controls? Sorry, but the 360 version just looks and plays
better. There are a few others I can think of off the top of my head (Far Cry, anyone?) but I'll stop there for now.

Even worse of a problem is the new trend of skipping the Wii for Next Gen games. What do Virtua Fighter 5, Fuel of War, Unreal Tournament, Assasin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto have in common? The lack of a Wii release. If you want to play any of these title, be prepared to get a system besides just the Wii. As long as the Wii keeps missing/having weaker versions of Multiplatform titles, it won't be able to stand alone in the living room.

I'm sorry, you are still talking in matter of opinions, yet you seem to give off the air as if these facets of expression are fact.

They are not.

I'll leave you be to your opinions, because they are just that. Opinions. Most Hardcore Gamers like myself have multiple systems anyways, however, I will state as a fact that I fucking hate sports games.

So your Argument of Madden on the Wii vs 360 vs PS3 does not hold water with me. I'll take Madden on the Wii any day because...oh..hmm...let me see...

Maybe...just MAYBE....actually somewhat FEELS like I am really playing football? Hmmm...IMAGINE that....The Total Experience wins out over sitting on my ass mashing buttons, and doing what I feel is equivalent to watching an actual football game. Being BORED OFF OF MY ASS.

I have a thing with Football. I'd rather actually play it, then sit there and watch it.

What do Virtua Fighter 5, Fuel of War, Unreal Tournament, Assasin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto have in common?

I'll be blunt here, so you'll have to forgive me. There's only one game you listed there that I even give a damn about being on a console, and that's Assassins Creed. And that game was mostly in development before alot of the aspects of the Nintendo Wii was discovered and lined up as an exclusive for the PS3 anyways before it was announced for the 360, which I have. Regardless, it's not a live or die title for me. As for UT, I can get that on my PC.

The rest are crap to me. Complete and utter crap. Yes, that is my opinion and solely such. I am fine with that. Most of the games you have listed up there are freaking sequels/rehashes anyways. Which goes back to my point.

Originality on the Wii? Or Rehashes of the same old stuff over and over again.

There's a reason why the Video Game industry died so long ago. Think on that.

With that having been said, it's time to go Play Video Games with my Girlfriend. Have fun. I leave this thread to rest.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 04:06 PM

As for UT, I can get that on my PC.

Just as a side note, as I recall, Assassin's Creed is hitting PC as well.

Zanzibar

02-21-2007, 04:10 PM

J, you make OUTSTANDING points, but if Microsoft's agenda is to beat Sony to the punch to make a solid play for next-gen superiority, you have to admit they've done a fair job of it.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 04:17 PM

J, you make OUTSTANDING points, but if Microsoft's agenda is to beat Sony to the punch to make a solid play for next-gen superiority, you have to admit they've done a fair job of it.
Which is why I was unsurprised by the closeness of their sales numbers to the PS3. I think they're likely to remain in that state of equilibrium in terms of sales. Even the head start the 360 has I'm inclined to believe will be nullified when the next big-name franchise exclusive hits the PS3, be it Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, GTA or Metal Gear.

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 04:19 PM

J, you make OUTSTANDING points, but if Microsoft's agenda is to beat Sony to the punch to make a solid play for next-gen superiority, you have to admit they've done a fair job of it.
Short term, yes. Long term, it's probably one of the worst things they could have done--and if I can play alarmist gamer for a moment--it could change the way these three companies (or any other future players) look at console releases. I think it goes without saying that the industry would not do well with 3 year lifespans for consoles. Hell, 4 years is too short.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 04:26 PM

I think your bias is showing if you honestly believe that.

They did some really, really stupid shit.

Cutting off what had been an ever-growing fanbase? Check.

Dismal launch line-up? Check.

Lack of console availability at launch? Check.

Incomplete backwards compatibility? Check.

Dual SKUs? Check.

Deliberately hampering their own Live efforts, thanks to said dual SKUs? Check.

Strangling your own online market by throttling XBLA releases? Check.

Major hardware failure rate? Check.

The 360 launch is full of all kinds of "things you shouldn't do", don't kid yourself for a second.

It's just considered kosher on this site to completely ignore them and pretend they don't exist or aren't a problem.

Most of those points show your bias too. Your expectations of what the dual SKU's was, and what MS has planned might not be identical.

And, neither Nintendo nor Sony are perfect either. Sony took the ball of fucking up to new heights, Nintendo seems to have been most on track.

Either way, its a three way race now, and that's just perfect by me. The last thing I want is a clear winner. Competition is good. Stiff competition is better.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 04:39 PM

Most of those points show your bias too. Your expectations of what the dual SKU's was, and what MS has planned might not be identical.

And, neither Nintendo nor Sony are perfect either. Sony took the ball of fucking up to new heights, Nintendo seems to have been most on track.

Either way, its a three way race now, and that's just perfect by me. The last thing I want is a clear winner. Competition is good. Stiff competition is better.
Most of those points show your bias too. Your expectations of what the dual SKU's was, and what MS has planned might not be identical.

I had no expectation of dual SKU's period, because dual SKU's defeat one of the shief selling points of a console gaming system: lack of hardware variability. I can go down to the store and buy a Wii, or a PS2, or an origanal Xbox, or a Gamecube, and everyone of them is the same, and does the exact same things, which means I can also be certain that any game I buy in the store will run in exactly the same way.

And, neither Nintendo nor Sony are perfect either.

Can you point to me where I said they were? Or is your inner fanboy inserting words in my mouth that weren't there?

Zanzibar

02-21-2007, 05:11 PM

Which is why I was unsurprised by the closeness of their sales numbers to the PS3. I think they're likely to remain in that state of equilibrium in terms of sales. Even the head start the 360 has I'm inclined to believe will be nullified when the next big-name franchise exclusive hits the PS3, be it Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, GTA or Metal Gear.
See, I don't understand why you anticipate that, Microsoft's X360 sales last year were in a vaccuum, when there was NO next-gen competition. Now, for every AAA title that comes out exclusive for the PS3, there will be at least one exclusive title for the X360 as well, for a system that comes at a lower price. GTA4 will be multiplatform, Gran Turismo will have a Forza counterpart, leaving FF and MGS as the potential PS3 system sellers, versus Halo 3.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 05:15 PM

Can you point to me where I said they were? Or is your inner fanboy inserting words in my mouth that weren't there?

You simply didn't state any. You ONLY focused on MS, which made you seem purely, completely, and utterly biased when I read it. Next time, be more careful with your words.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 05:24 PM

See, I don't understand why you anticipate that, Microsoft's X360 sales last year were in a vaccuum, when there was NO next-gen competition. Now, for every AAA title that comes out exclusive for the PS3, there will be at least one exclusive title for the X360 as well, for a system that comes at a lower price. GTA4 will be multiplatform, Gran Turismo will have a Forza counterpart, leaving FF and MGS as the potential PS3 system sellers, versus Halo 3.
I think you are highly mistaken if you seriously think Forza is at all a threat to Gran Turismo's sales.

Other than that, your point is a decent one, though I think that Halo is not going to be powerful enough to compete with the far larger fanbases of either FF or MGS.

Trazzlo the Magnificant

02-21-2007, 05:32 PM

Other than that, your point is a decent one, though I think that Halo is not going to be powerful enough to compete with the far larger fanbases of either FF or MGS.

Compete? To what, and to where? Are you saying that MS is a lost cause? I think its perfectly reasonable to assume that all three consoles will be competing and that each of them will have winning games of some sort.

Really, they could all have identical games, and all be winners. Or, they can have variations on various common themes and service the people who bought their consoles.

But I don't see any one console completely running ahead of the others, to the point that third party development becomes an issue.

J Arcane

02-21-2007, 05:37 PM

But I don't see any one console completely running ahead of the others, to the point that third party development becomes an issue.

Are you even fucking reading the thread, or are you jsut looking around for excuses to get your little fanboy pajamas in a twist?

DaXIthR

02-21-2007, 05:50 PM

I think you are highly mistaken if you seriously think Forza is at all a threat to Gran Turismo's sales.

Definitely agree with you there.

There is no other Gran Turismo. There's an entire subculture that pays homage to Gran Turismo. GT literally sells cars.

Sony has FF, MGS and GT.

Jack B

02-21-2007, 06:17 PM

Price matters. My take is the Wii performed really well. The PS3!s numbers were expected to be much higher. So many people spin it like it!s to be expected but it even a few months ago it wasn!t. Certainly the 6m PS3 predicts by March look impossile to reach with 2 momths to go.

With the 360!s 10m unit lead the PS3 needs to outsell the 360 by 800k per mth for 12 mths..., not lose by 50k.

Price is a valid contributor to the PS3's disadvantage, but where are the people who laughed at the 360 when it was being outsold by the $129 PS2...

Both the PS3 and 360 are too expensive for most consumers, but the PS3 has now proven with plenty of supply, that it!s officially in trouble.

That!s my read. Yours may vary...

KingGorilla

02-21-2007, 06:20 PM

Price does matter, I think that the 360 vs PS3 numbers indicate that. The public is showing that they do not see much difference between 400 and 500 or 600 dollars. The "war" is far from over and the playing field is surprisingly even for all parties involved. One thing I am curious is how GFW will affect the console space. Vista requires a certain ammount of hardware power, I think we will see PC gaming in the retail space take off a bit more. Maybe those fuckers at EB will stock a few shelves with them.

Tyrant

02-21-2007, 06:50 PM

Speaking of the PS2, Voodoo Extreme posted up the remaining console and handeld sales numbers:

Wii: 435,503 units
PS2: 299,352 units
360: 294,000 units
PS3: 243,554 units
NDS: 239,000 units
PSP: 211,000 units
GBA: 179,000 units

I'm surprised at the GBA numbers, considering the scarcity of releases nowadays.

bean19

02-21-2007, 07:08 PM

Short term, yes. Long term, it's probably one of the worst things they could have done--and if I can play alarmist gamer for a moment--it could change the way these three companies (or any other future players) look at console releases. I think it goes without saying that the industry would not do well with 3 year lifespans for consoles. Hell, 4 years is too short.

Games are what sell systems and this is where the 360 is kicking the other systems in the pants. J Arcane is right that they screwed the pooch in a lot of ways, but dollar for dollar, I'm having more fun with the 360 than I'm having with any other console right now including my PS2.

This looks like it will be the case throughout 2007 too. I'm hoping the other systems get some great games soon as I'm definitely one of those people that have a favorite console each generation (last gen it was my PS2), but own all of them. I'm much more a fan of the GAMES than the systems you play them on.

If the Wii or the PS3 can somehow come out with a large number of awesome titles this year then I'll be picking them up and my favorite could shift to them. I just don't see it happening. 2008 will be an interesting year.

DaXIthR

02-21-2007, 07:09 PM

Wii: 435,503 units
PS2: 299,352 units
360: 294,000 units
PS3: 243,554 units
NDS: 239,000 units
PSP: 211,000 units
GBA: 179,000 units

I'm surprised at the GBA numbers, considering the scarcity of releases nowadays.

I consider this a bloody travesty. The DS Lite should be moving over half a million systems every month. It's my pick for the best system up to this point.

I think Nintendo might be cannibalizing their DS sales by continuing to push the GBA so that it still moves almost 200K in a January where the previous December didn't have any major releases for it.

Consider me boggled. How can someone buy a $600 system on potential and not see the virtues of a system like the DS Lite?

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 07:27 PM

Games are what sell systems and this is where the 360 is kicking the other systems in the pants. J Arcane is right that they screwed the pooch in a lot of ways, but dollar for dollar, I'm having more fun with the 360 than I'm having with any other console right now including my PS2.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with my comment that you're responding to, but if you're insinuating that software will determine console cycles, you have it backwards. Microsoft is the only one that tells Microsoft when to discontinue a system, and if they're going to stop supporting it, software makers are going to stop developing for it. Games determine the winner each cycle, no doubt. But that comment I made was about something else entirely.

NeoSuplex

02-21-2007, 07:45 PM

I'm not really sure what this has to do with my comment that you're responding to, but if you're insinuating that software will determine console cycles, you have it backwards. Microsoft is the only one that tells Microsoft when to discontinue a system, and if they're going to stop supporting it, software makers are going to stop developing for it. Games determine the winner each cycle, no doubt. But that comment I made was about something else entirely.

Developers abandoned the original XBox Long before Microsoft did. Most developers stopped making Exclusives for the Cube and the Box once it became ridiculously apparent that the PS2 had completely dominated that generation. So, rather than keep the focus on their past System, MS decided to make sure that the 360 didn't share that fate. Were XBox owners screwed? Hell yes. But, as far as the 360 is concerned, it payed off.

Balthasar

02-21-2007, 09:32 PM

Developers abandoned the original XBox Long before Microsoft did.
I'm pretty certain you have no way of substantiating this. If you look back at when all the news of a new XBox was leaking from Microsoft, the software production of the console had not ebbed yet. I think most XBox owners here would agree that the loss of support was pretty sudden and not a result of developers abandoning the platform.

motor

02-22-2007, 12:00 AM

I don't disagree from a gamer's standpoint, but Jesus, I think people would be hard-pressed to find fault with MS's blueprint for next-gen success.

I think their only mistake was the backward compatibility. They should have made a real effort to guarantee that every xbox title from 6 months before the 360's launch to a year after launch ran on 360. It would have smoothed the transition over greatly. We (game developers) lost a lot of good men (Benjamins and Franklins) to that mistake :)

ECM

02-22-2007, 12:16 AM

Consider me boggled. How can someone buy a $600 system on potential and not see the virtues of a system like the DS Lite?

It was sold out for half of January and is still very, very hard to find. Do a cursory check of big box retailers online--good luck finding one. Hell, even EB/GS only have pink in-stock with black and white nowhere to be found.

mister_slim

02-22-2007, 02:32 AM

I think their only mistake was the backward compatibility. They should have made a real effort to guarantee that every xbox title from 6 months before the 360's launch to a year after launch ran on 360. It would have smoothed the transition over greatly. We (game developers) lost a lot of good men (Benjamins and Franklins) to that mistake :)
The last four games I've tried to play haven't worked. I'm getting rather tired of that little 'can't play this' tab.

Magnanimous Gnome

02-22-2007, 05:51 AM

Are you even fucking reading the thread, or are you jsut looking around for excuses to get your little fanboy pajamas in a twist?

That's what I got from his posts as well. Some people will look everywhere for an argument.

bean19

02-22-2007, 06:31 AM

bean19

02-22-2007, 06:40 AM

I think that Halo is not going to be powerful enough to compete with the far larger fanbases of either FF or MGS.

Actually, Halo has a larger fan base than these others (though it is still 2 power houses vs. one).

http://www.vgcharts.com/page4.html

Halo 2 is the 9th best-selling game of all time, and the original is the 10th best-selling game. You have to go down to the 38th spot to find Final Fantasy VII and around the 50th to find MGS 2 (PS2).

I think that Sony will definitely catch up a lot in 2008 when these games come out. I know that I will own a PS3 eventually for these titles, though I am hoping for a price drop before they come out.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 06:52 AM

They had already lost last-gen. Thus they moved on. Sorry, I assumed this was "given" knowledge.
Right, Microsoft moved on. This doesn't have anything to do with publishers.

Halo 2 is the 9th best-selling game of all time, and the original is the 10th best-selling game. You have to go down to the 38th spot to find Final Fantasy VII and around the 50th to find MGS 2 (PS2).
By that logic, Halo 3 has no shot against the next Pokemon game.

bean19

02-22-2007, 10:13 AM

By that logic, Halo 3 has no shot against the next Pokemon game.

Possibly, though they've diluted the Pokemon license a ton, so the individual titles may have less individual impact. However, I think we can safely assume (using this same logic) that the next GTA will kick everything else's ass.

What was your point though? Did you mean to point out that Pokemon is an even stronger IP than Halo, MGS, and Final Fantasy? If so, I agree with you but I don't know why this was important information for the rest of the discussion.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 10:36 AM

Possibly, though they've diluted the Pokemon license a ton, so the individual titles may have less individual impact.
No they don't. Look at that list again. Three different versions of essentially the same Pokemon game in the top 10. Two more if we expand to top 15.

What was your point though? Did you mean to point out that Pokemon is an even stronger IP than Halo, MGS, and Final Fantasy? If so, I agree with you but I don't know why this was important information for the rest of the discussion.
My point is that you're judging the strength/following of the IP purely on sales. Do you think Nintendo's success with the Wii is in any way dependent on what they do with Pokemon?

NeoSuplex

02-22-2007, 11:15 AM

No they don't. Look at that list again. Three different versions of essentially the same Pokemon game in the top 10. Two more if we expand to top 15.

My point is that you're judging the strength/following of the IP purely on sales. Do you think Nintendo's success with the Wii is in any way dependent on what they do with Pokemon?

Considering that Pokemon is a Handheld title who's console versions don't sell nearly as well...

Wait, what was your point again?

Jack B

02-22-2007, 12:49 PM

Bean19 actually posted the link with much more descriptive info. If April was the time when more systems became available, and availability is what held the 360 back, I'd love for someone to explain this breakdown:

February 06: 161,000
March 06: 192,000
April 06: 295,381
May 06: 221,000
June 06: 277,000
July 06: 206,000

I'm sorry, but those numbers are not suggestive of the masses busting down the gates, now that the system was in greater availability. I mean, the sales actually get worse after the first month of so-called mass availability. You know what I can bet you those sales numbers do correlate strongly with? Software releases. If you look at the rest of the chart, you'll see sales are stagnant right through Summer until November (with a slight, but marginal spike in September). Can anyone tell me what games came out that might have caused that? Anyone?

So again, I am wondering how people can argue that the PS3's performance in sales is somehow significantly worse than what the 360 was doing?

Someone once said, "You can't accurately measure anything, because the physical act of measuring it, alters it".

Anyway, every situation is different... I believe the 360 didn't sell in great numbers last year for a couple of main reasons.

1. It was (and still is) expensive for the average console buyer.
2. There were also a percentage of people waiting to see what the PS3 and Wii (revolution) would bring to the table.

Things are different now. All three next gen boxes are out and all the hardcore fans have purchased. Now it's up to the fence sitters to declare a winner.

The PS3 has the brand, but the 360 has a greater volume of titles and it looks from release dates, that won't change through the remainder of 2007. As for price, it looks like the 360 will be first to offer a lower price (if not lower, they'll have lower manfacturing cost, which will equal greater profits).

Thus, sales are not likely to go through the roof for either the PS3 or the 360 any time soon unit we see price drops or some AAA games.

The PS3 sold 250k units (NPD report) in January and the 360 300k. The PS3 needs to sell about 1 million more per month to catch up in 2007. It won't happen. Without a price drop for either likely they'll both putter along with marginal growth and the 360 will maintain it's lead.

Software wise, the 360 will be the plaform of choice thru 2007. With an 8-10 million unit lead, many cross platform titles will actually sell better for owners who have both a 360 and PS3. They'll have achievements, a closer knit online community and at times online play on the 360 vs none on the PS3. Publishers like software sales.

I'm not sure what the tipping point is for Microsoft, but if they increase their lead beyond the 8-10 million units, at some point Sony will have lost. Sony can't let Microsoft get too much further ahead as manufacturing costs will allow Microsoft to make more profits or reduce street price. Either of those are bad for Sony.

torrefaction

02-22-2007, 12:51 PM

Someone once said, "You can't accurately measure anything, because the physical act of measuring it, alters it".

Anyway, every situation is different... I believe the 360 didn't sell in great numbers last year for a couple of main reasons.

1. It was (and still is) expensive for the average console buyer.
2. There were also a percentage of people waiting to see what the PS3 and Wii (revolution) would bring to the table.

Things are different now. All three next gen boxes are out and all the hardcore fans have purchased. Now it's up to the fence sitters to declare a winner.

The PS3 has the brand, but it has a higher price. The 360 has a greater volume of titles now and it looks like through the remainder of 2007.

Thus, sales are not likely to go through the roof for either the PS3 or the 360 any time soon. Once the price drops come or some AAA game maybe, but I don't see things changing much without price drops or killer apps.

The PS3 sold 250k units (NPD report) in January and the 360 300k. The PS3 needs to sell about 1 million more per month to catch up in 2007. It won't happen. Without a price drop for either likely they'll both putter along with growth, but nothing dramatic and the 360 will maintain it's lead.

Software wise, the 360 will be the plaform of choice thru 2007 with a 8-10 million unit lead. Many cross platform titles will actually sell better for owners who have both a 360 and PS3, because of achievements, a closer knit online community and at times online play on the 360 vs none on the PS3.

I'm not sure what the tipping point is for Microsoft, but if they increase their lead beyond the 8-10 million units, at some point they'll lose. Sony can't let Microsoft get too much further ahead as manufacturing costs will allow Microsoft to make more profits or reduce street price. Either of those are bad for Sony.

You mean like what appears to be happening in the UK? If those prices stick for any period of time, Sony's going to be in trouble when they launch.

Hell, NINTENDO may be in trouble if they keep those prices that low.

bean19

02-22-2007, 12:51 PM

My point is that you're judging the strength/following of the IP purely on sales. Do you think Nintendo's success with the Wii is in any way dependent on what they do with Pokemon?

How would you judge the strength/following of an IP? What makes judging the strength/following of an IP by it's sales a poor measurement?

I don't think Pokemen will have a strong impact on Wii sales because it is a handheld title much more than a console title, but I do think their success is derived from the strength of their first-party game titles - like Zelda and Mario that are also featured strongly on this list.

I bought my Wii to play Zelda, and returned it after beating Zelda (and getting beaten by Trauma Center and beating Excite Truck and beating Rayman Raving Rabids). I'll pick one up again when it has more titles like Zelda and/or a steady stream of quality games coming out like the others I mentioned. So having a broad range of titles and frequently releases is also a strong part of what creates a console's success or failure, but big IPs are a part of it too. I bought my PS2 because of it's numerous titles and the promise of FF X. It was by far my favorite console of the last generation.

Are you contending that Halo won't sell 360s or that MGS & FF won't sell PS3's?

Zanzibar

02-22-2007, 01:08 PM

http://www.knitemare.org/cats/letmeshowyouthem.jpg

Jack B

02-22-2007, 01:51 PM

You mean like what appears to be happening in the UK? If those prices stick for any period of time, Sony's going to be in trouble when they launch.

Hell, NINTENDO may be in trouble if they keep those prices that low.

Yeah, I was wondering if Microsoft is starting to kick back money to distributors/retailers to move the old inventory before a price drop or if they are doing that on their own to move excess inventory.

Either way, I'd expect Microsoft is "capable" of a price drop sooner than Sony.

Europe is interesting though, because it's a Sony stronghold. I think the snubbing of them will hurt a little, but on Eurogamer it doesn't seem to have deterred many from their Sony love. We'll see.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 02:19 PM

How would you judge the strength/following of an IP? What makes judging the strength/following of an IP by it's sales a poor measurement?

I don't think Pokemen will have a strong impact on Wii sales because it is a handheld title much more than a console title, but I do think their success is derived from the strength of their first-party game titles - like Zelda and Mario that are also featured strongly on this list.
Okay, I'll rephrase this again, to be a little more clear. Do you think Mario, which is a bigger seller than Halo according to that list, will determine whether Nintendo comes out on top this console cycle?

Are you contending that Halo won't sell 360s or that MGS & FF won't sell PS3's?
No. You contended that Halo is a more significant IP than the combination of MGS and FF because they are lower on the all-time charts than Halo. That is what I am disputing.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 02:26 PM

Someone once said, "You can't accurately measure anything, because the physical act of measuring it, alters it".

Anyway, every situation is different... I believe the 360 didn't sell in great numbers last year for a couple of main reasons.

1. It was (and still is) expensive for the average console buyer.
2. There were also a percentage of people waiting to see what the PS3 and Wii (revolution) would bring to the table.

Things are different now. All three next gen boxes are out and all the hardcore fans have purchased. Now it's up to the fence sitters to declare a winner.
And yet, the more expensive PS3 is selling almost as much as the 360 with a vastly better software library? What does that tell you, definitively?

Software wise, the 360 will be the plaform of choice thru 2007. With an 8-10 million unit lead, many cross platform titles will actually sell better for owners who have both a 360 and PS3. They'll have achievements, a closer knit online community and at times online play on the 360 vs none on the PS3. Publishers like software sales.
Publishers love software sales, but they don't suddenly stop making games for one platform just because the other platform has a few million more in their installed base (or else the XBox would have died much sooner). Also, you have to remember that while you may like achievements, its really not something most casual gamers care about. Most casual gamers don't even like to play games online. They want to be able to update their rosters, but all of the other stuff is for the hardcore. Achievements aren't going to be a significant determining factor in all of this.

All of this distracts from the point that, contrary to popular belief around here, right now the PS3 is not selling significantly worse than the 360 at this same time last year.

bean19

02-22-2007, 03:27 PM

No. You contended that Halo is a more significant IP than the combination of MGS and FF because they are lower on the all-time charts than Halo. That is what I am disputing.

Ah. So you got into the thread late or didn't read what I was replying to. J Arcane said that MGS and FF have larger following than Halo. I never contended that a single big IP could win the console race. That's preposterous on it's face. What made you believe that I was saying that?

bean19

02-22-2007, 03:29 PM

And yet, the more expensive PS3 is selling almost as much as the 360 with a vastly better software library? What does that tell you, definitively?

That the PS3 is still appreciating sales from being new only two months after it's release and despite this they are not selling as well as the 360. The expectation should be that the PS3 would outsell the 360 by a significant amount for several months after it's launch unless limited by supply - which it is not.

Vanthar

02-22-2007, 03:36 PM

Halo 2 is the 9th best-selling game of all time, and the original is the 10th best-selling game. You have to go down to the 38th spot to find Final Fantasy VII and around the 50th to find MGS 2 (PS2).

Your numbers represent US numbers only. Halo obviously wins in popularity in the US, but worldwide the numbers are much more comparable.

The PS3 sold 250k units (NPD report) in January and the 360 300k. The PS3 needs to sell about 1 million more per month to catch up in 2007. It won't happen. Without a price drop for either likely they'll both putter along with marginal growth and the 360 will maintain it's lead.

Your posts are generally well thought out, but I think that in this case you are neglecting some other important factors. The PS3 is outselling the 360 in Japan by a pretty decent margin. It also has not even released in Europe, which seems (at least right now) that it remains a very Sony-inclined region. I would propose that currently the PS3 is very close to 360 worldwide sales with only being released in 2 major regions. Once it is available in all regions, it will become more clear whether Sony has any hope of overcoming Microsoft's lead.

mister_slim

02-22-2007, 04:22 PM

Your numbers represent US numbers only. Halo obviously wins in popularity in the US, but worldwide the numbers are much more comparable.
In fact, the chart you're looking for is here (http://www.vgcharts.org/worldtotals.php). It's an interesting chart. Turns out FFX outsold Halo 2. And I never would have thought GT3 would have sold 14 million copies.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 04:22 PM

Ah. So you got into the thread late or didn't read what I was replying to. J Arcane said that MGS and FF have larger following than Halo. I never contended that a single big IP could win the console race. That's preposterous on it's face. What made you believe that I was saying that?
No, I read what you said, and what you were replying to, and so I was responding more to the core of the argument than just what you had said in the comment I quoted. J Arcane is saying that FF and MGS have a larger following than Halo, true. The point of bringing this up is of course on the subject of console sales and franchises that will increase those sales. You contend, based on the performances of the last two Halo games (which are the only two Halo games), that because the first time you see FF on that list, it is lower down than either Halo game, that this must mean Halo has a larger following than FF (let alone MGS). I was trying to demonstrate how sales are not completely indicative of a franchise's fanbase by trying to compare what you think the effect of certain top-selling franchises will be on certain consoles. Without getting much more into that (because it will get more convoluted, trust me), I'll give you an even more simple way of looking at it. Final Fantasy is actually the fourth-biggest selling franchise of all time (behind Mario, Pokemon, and the Sims). According to Wikipedia, the franchise has sold in excess of 68 million copies of FF-related software. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_computer_and_video_games#Franchise). Does this mean that FF has 68 million fans? How exactly do you quantify this? What if Sony got the Sims exclusively on the PS3? Do you think that would unequivocally put Sony ahead of Nintendo and Microsoft?

I guess I could have just corrected your previous assertion and brought out bigger numbers for comparison, but both ways of looking at it are wrong.

That the PS3 is still appreciating sales from being new only two months after it's release and despite this they are not selling as well as the 360. The expectation should be that the PS3 would outsell the 360 by a significant amount for several months after it's launch unless limited by supply - which it is not.
I feel like we're going in circles. Why should the PS3 be expected to sell more systems than the 360 did at the same time in its cycle when the PS3 has more competition and (arguably) fewer games worth picking up? Why does "newness" mean it should sell more? Successful products don't sell best when they are simply "new." You can't find a major (successful) product on the market that had it's best sales when it was first released.

Jack B

02-22-2007, 04:26 PM

And yet, the more expensive PS3 is selling almost as much as the 360 with a vastly better software library? What does that tell you, definitively?

It tells me, that Sony has a brand that is about as strong as we all figured, but that supply caught up with demand in early January and has stalled until things change.

Now the hardcore gamers have spoken and Microsoft has an 8-10 million unit lead. What's left is for the non hardcore gamers to decide.

Sony will release more games. Microsoft will release more games. Microsoft actually has more games on the IGN release calendars than Sony, so it doesn't look like Sony will crush Microsoft in games releases in 2007. As for price. I'd bet on Microsoft lowering their price sooner. What do you think? Lastly for AAA games, I'm not sure, but Microsoft has some big ones coming out and Sony keeps losing exclusives.

Like I said before, the fanboys have spoken, now it's up to the average console gamer to decide.

Publishers love software sales, but they don't suddenly stop making games for one platform just because the other platform has a few million more in their installed base (or else the XBox would have died much sooner).

If you've been following the exclusive threads, you'll remember, that PS3 titles moving to the 360 is a common topic. The publishers have been shifting. Not all at once, but it's happening. Anyone can see that.

Also, you have to remember that while you may like achievements, its really not something most casual gamers care about. Most casual gamers don't even like to play games online. They want to be able to update their rosters, but all of the other stuff is for the hardcore. Achievements aren't going to be a significant determining factor in all of this.

You probably don't follow my posts enough to know, but Achievements are "not" a motivator for me. Ask anyone on my friends list how much I play Madden and then click on my profile to see my achievement points... I just don't care, but like so many predictions I make, it's not about me, it's about what I think the industry or consumers think. I've seen amazing passion around achievement points and it's a landslide in favor of them. Many people (not me) will chose the 360 version if they have a chose specifically because of achievement points.

All of this distracts from the point that, contrary to popular belief around here, right now the PS3 is not selling significantly worse than the 360 at this same time last year.

Last year was last year. This is this year. You can't always compare what happened one year ago with what is happening today. Circumstances change.

Do you believe the PS3 would be sitting on shelves in early January if it had come out last year and the 360 had come out this year? Not a chance. The PS3 would have crushed it. Many of the 360 buyers were PS2 owners, that just wanted the latest and greatest. They'd have likely preferred the PS3, but didn't have a choice. Many of those same buyers haven't purchased a PS3, because they have a 360 and now realized they like it and don't need to spend the extra $600. They've moved on. Some will buy a PS3 at some point, but it's not like it would have been if they PS3 had shipped a year earlier.

See, you can't really compare things happening in different years. The circumstances often change.

Jack B

02-22-2007, 04:37 PM

Your posts are generally well thought out, but I think that in this case you are neglecting some other important factors. The PS3 is outselling the 360 in Japan by a pretty decent margin. It also has not even released in Europe, which seems (at least right now) that it remains a very Sony-inclined region. I would propose that currently the PS3 is very close to 360 worldwide sales with only being released in 2 major regions. Once it is available in all regions, it will become more clear whether Sony has any hope of overcoming Microsoft's lead.

Thanks. You're correct, that I quoted only the US NPD numbers. I didn't have the energy to look up the Japanese numbers. The Japan numbers, if I remember correctly have been very low. Lower than the US. In Europe the PS3 is getting zero, so if we had NPD numbers for Europe it likely would cancel Japan and then some.

I disagree, that worldwide the PS3 outsold the 360. I think Europe sells more than the differential in Japan. Maybe I'll hunt down the Japan numbers.

In any event, although Sony will get a big bump from Europe, they need about 800k a month more and that won't happen just by adding Europe when they're only selling 250k now in the US.

It will help, but they need big help, not 200k units a month help. I'm still waiting for the Microsoft price drop hammer to fall. It should counteract whatever Sony decides to do, which is likely no price drop and then possibly a match in price drop. Either way, the 360 will be less money to purchase, which is a very big factor in non hardcore fans buying decisions.

Microsoft has Sony by the balls when it comes to cost per unit.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 04:38 PM

It tells me, that Sony has a brand that is about as strong as we all figured, but that supply caught up with demand in early January and has stalled until things change.
You're completely ignoring all the other statistics that tell a different story. If the amount of PS3s in supply is a significantly greater red flag in PS3 sales than the 360's lack of supply at the same time in their cycle, why did the 360 not see a greater spike in sales after the supply problems were fixed? Why did the 360's sales continue to remain average throughout most of the summer and into the fall season? It's about two things here, and it's been the same for both systems: games and price.

If you've been following the exclusive threads, you'll remember, that PS3 titles moving to the 360 is a common topic. The publishers have been shifting. Not all at once, but it's happening. Anyone can see that.
If you've been following you would see it's been happening in the other direction as well, with titles advertised as "only on XBox" being announced for the PS3.

You probably don't follow my posts enough to know, but Achievements are "not" a motivator for me. Ask anyone on my friends list how much I play Madden and then click on my profile to see my achievement points... I just don't care, but like so many predictions I make, it's not about me, it's about what I think the industry or consumers think. I've seen amazing passion around achievement points and it's a landslide in favor of them. Many people (not me) will chose the 360 version if they have a chose specifically because of achievement points.
But that passion that you are observing is a result of self-selection bias. You're seeing the bulk of this passion either through people you associate yourself with, who themselves are more likely to be "hardcore gamers" than not, and you're likely also seeing that on Live!, where casual gamers spend little-or-no time.

See, you can't really compare things happening in different years. The circumstances often change.
Yeah, the circumstances for the PS3 are more competitive than when the 360 was released, but with remarkably similar results.

Jack B

02-22-2007, 04:52 PM

[QUOTE]You're completely ignoring all the other statistics that tell a different story. If the amount of PS3s in supply is a significantly greater red flag in PS3 sales than the 360's lack of supply at the same time in their cycle, why did the 360 not see a greater spike in sales after the supply problems were fixed? Why did the 360's sales continue to remain average throughout most of the summer and into the fall season? It's about two things here, and it's been the same for both systems: games and price.

Sony spent a lot of energy from E3 '05 until the launch of the PS3 in Nov 2006. Once the hardcore console gamers bought 360's, everyone settled into a wait and see approach. I don't think you're considering that aspect. There isn't too much wait and see left. A few big AAA titles like Halo 3 and MSG4 are on the horizon, but for the most part the "gotta have it" crowd has made their decisions.

I've never argued, that the PS3 brand isn't compelling. It is. If it wasn't Sony would be done. It's just one of many factors.

If you've been following you would see it's been happening in the other direction as well, with titles advertised as "only on XBox" being announced for the PS3.

Oh, I've been following it and seeing it from both sides. Oblivion is a good example I think 6 of the top 7 top gamerankings games on the PS3 were 360 titles. It's happening both ways, but remember, more major exclusives are moving the 360's way. At E3 '05 you would have been laughed at for saying more exclusive's would move to the 360 than the PS3, but it's happening. Things have changed. It's all about the 8-10m unit head start. Publishers take notice.

But that passion that you are observing is a result of self-selection bias. You're seeing the bulk of this passion either through people you associate yourself with, who themselves are more likely to be "hardcore gamers" than not, and you're likely also seeing that on Live!, where casual gamers spend little-or-no time.

I'm not sure I understand what passion I'm seeing. I just see the PS3 sales have stalled for now. eBay deals are dead. Units are on shelves and people are considering both a PS3 and a 360 equally for high end console gaming. I'm not commenting on passion.

Yeah, the circumstances for the PS3 are more competitive than when the 360 was released, but with remarkably similar results.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you remember how many PS3 fans ridiculed the 360 launch and said the PS3 would triple the 360's launch numbers.... Well, it's far from it. I just see the bar being continually reset, so now the PS3 launch looks "just fine".

OK, but it took a lot of excuses to get to where we can call this a success or "the PS3 is right on track". It's not. It's way way behind were most thought it would be and my guess is this will be a Harvard Business School case study for years to come. It may be a "How do you take a 75% market share lead and lose it in two years" case study. History hasn't been written yet, but it's not going well. To describe it any other way is sugar coating.

I can guarantee you there are no high fives internally at Sony. Externally, sure, but internally. No way.

Chameleo

02-22-2007, 05:29 PM

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2140/1170452608545yl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

wow. made me laugh for real! that doesnt happen often round here.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 09:10 PM

Sony spent a lot of energy from E3 '05 until the launch of the PS3 in Nov 2006. Once the hardcore console gamers bought 360's, everyone settled into a wait and see approach. I don't think you're considering that aspect.
It's not that I'm not considering it; it's that there is no way to substantiate that in sales. There's no way to tell just what kind of effect any of that has on anything other than your own individual perception of what has happened since.

There isn't too much wait and see left. A few big AAA titles like Halo 3 and MSG4 are on the horizon, but for the most part the "gotta have it" crowd has made their decisions.
That's a pretty sad state of affairs for the videogame industry, then, for it to have shrunk so markedly within two years.

I'm not sure I understand what passion I'm seeing. I just see the PS3 sales have stalled for now. eBay deals are dead. Units are on shelves and people are considering both a PS3 and a 360 equally for high end console gaming. I'm not commenting on passion.
"I've seen amazing passion around achievement points and it's a landslide in favor of them. Many people (not me) will chose the 360 version if they have a chose specifically because of achievement points."

Your words, not mine.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you remember how many PS3 fans ridiculed the 360 launch and said the PS3 would triple the 360's launch numbers.... Well, it's far from it. I just see the bar being continually reset, so now the PS3 launch looks "just fine".
What you don't seem to be getting is that none of that matters. Fan predictions and bias have nothing to do with the reality of sales. You want to talk about why you chose the system you chose, that's one thing. But we're talking about sales here, and fanboy gloating is irrelevant.

OK, but it took a lot of excuses to get to where we can call this a success or "the PS3 is right on track".
Those aren't my words. The 360 launch stunk, and so does this one. My point is that the PS3 launch is no worse than the 360 launch, and you haven't said anything to actually refute that. All you can bring up are bruised egos.

bean19

02-22-2007, 09:25 PM

What you don't seem to be getting is that none of that matters. Fan predictions and bias have nothing to do with the reality of sales. You want to talk about why you chose the system you chose, that's one thing. But we're talking about sales here, and fanboy gloating is irrelevant.

Those aren't my words. The 360 launch stunk, and so does this one. My point is that the PS3 launch is no worse than the 360 launch, and you haven't said anything to actually refute that. All you can bring up are bruised egos.

The thing is, the PS2 was the king of the last generation by an overwhelming amount. This leads to positive brand recognition (and one of the things I learned from working at Gamestop during the launch of the PS3 and the Wii is how strong the Playstation brand is - especially in non-gamers); however, we are seeing the PS3 perform on par with the 360 during their same life cycle month (and poorly during the acutual month), and the 360's sales were limited by supply (unlike the PS3).

You just can't get around these facts. It's not looking pretty for the PS3 right now.

Btw, I'm not a 360 fanboy Balthasar. Like I said, I will own every system eventually - just like I always do. I'm just commenting on what is shown by the sales figures.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 09:30 PM

The thing is, the PS2 was the king of the last generation by an overwhelming amount. This leads to positive brand recognition (and one of the things I learned from working at Gamestop during the launch of the PS3 and the Wii is how strong the Playstation brand is - especially in non-gamers); however, we are seeing the PS3 perform on par with the 360 during their same life cycle month (and poorly during the acutual month), and the 360's sales were limited by supply (unlike the PS3).

You just can't get around these facts. It's not looking pretty for the PS3 right now.
What are you talking about? I showed you the sales figures after 360s became more available, and sales did not increase significantly until months after (coinciding with major software releases). The sales absolutely back up what I am saying.

Zanzibar

02-22-2007, 09:48 PM

What are you talking about? I showed you the sales figures after 360s became more available, and sales did not increase significantly until months after (coinciding with major software releases). The sales absolutely back up what I am saying.
I said this before, it's going to be really difficult to expect the PS3 to mirror what the X360 did because the X360 was operating in a next-gen vaccuum. The X360 cornered the market on high-def gaming for an entire year.

If you want to compare it with something, compare it with the PS2/Xbox race from 2001-2002, when the PS2 continued building its insurmountable dominance while the Xbox, although similarly priced and had better tech, was being left in the dust.

I find it humorous that people 'expect' the PS3 to magically overcome a 10mil unit lead with a system that's $100-$200 more AND has fewer games. Those who have been on the fence up until now can't help but see the staggering difference between the robust X360 library and the meek PS3 library. The X360 library will CONTINUE to grow with a lot of nifty exclusives - Crackdown, Mass Effect, and Halo 3 - and, a cheaper alternative to the multiplatform titles like Assassin's Creed.

Plus, every move that Sony makes will be countered by Microsoft. This is a given.

Balthasar

02-22-2007, 10:00 PM

I said this before, it's going to be really difficult to expect the PS3 to mirror what the X360 did because the X360 was operating in a next-gen vaccuum. The X360 cornered the market on high-def gaming for an entire year.

360 Sales:
1st month: 326,000 (bad shortage)
2nd month: 281,441
3rd month: 249,000

PS3 Sales:
1st month: 197,000 (worse shortage)
2nd month: 490,700
3rd month: 244,000

I wonder when someone is going to actually acknowledge real numbers instead of speculation, ego, and bias.

Edit: I totally forgot the PS3 numbers don't include a European launch, whereas the 360 numbers do. Hmmm.

I find it humorous that people 'expect' the PS3 to magically overcome a 10mil unit lead with a system that's $100-$200 more AND has fewer games.
I hope you aren't talking about me, because I'm pretty certain I never stated that.

Jack B

02-22-2007, 10:29 PM

It's not that I'm not considering it; it's that there is no way to substantiate that in sales. There's no way to tell just what kind of effect any of that has on anything other than your own individual perception of what has happened since.

That's a pretty sad state of affairs for the videogame industry, then, for it to have shrunk so markedly within two years.

"I've seen amazing passion around achievement points and it's a landslide in favor of them. Many people (not me) will chose the 360 version if they have a chose specifically because of achievement points."

Your words, not mine.

What you don't seem to be getting is that none of that matters. Fan predictions and bias have nothing to do with the reality of sales. You want to talk about why you chose the system you chose, that's one thing. But we're talking about sales here, and fanboy gloating is irrelevant.

Those aren't my words. The 360 launch stunk, and so does this one. My point is that the PS3 launch is no worse than the 360 launch, and you haven't said anything to actually refute that. All you can bring up are bruised egos.

This will go round and round. You refute everything I say. I turn around and refute everything you say.

I could do it again, but I'm not up to it tonight.

We are not communicating. It was fun while it lasted.

Jack B

02-22-2007, 10:37 PM

360 Sales:
1st month: 326,000 (bad shortage)
2nd month: 281,441
3rd month: 249,000

PS3 Sales:
1st month: 197,000 (worse shortage)
2nd month: 490,700
3rd month: 244,000

I wonder when someone is going to actually acknowledge real numbers instead of speculation, ego, and bias.

Edit: I totally forgot the PS3 numbers don't include a European launch, whereas the 360 numbers do. Hmmm.

I hope you aren't talking about me, because I'm pretty certain I never stated that.

Why not make a prediction based upon your "real numbers". I'd like to know what you predict will happen. I've given my analysis on what this all means. I'd like to hear yours without the ego and bias you're claiming others have.

We interpret "success" differently. That's fine. Now predict the future sales results for 2007 and we'll come back to this thread later and see if you're right.

You can't be "wrong" about your opinion about whether the Sony launch was successful or not, because it's just an opinion. Use that knowledge to predict what it means for the future.

I predict the PS3 will not catch the 360 in 2007. I believe both the 360 and the PS3 will have moderate success, but total unit sales won't be very far apart until some killer app comes out or a price cut. In 2007, I predict Microsoft has a greater chance of either of those things happening.

I believe inventory on shelves in early January is a sign, that the PS3 has sold out it's hard core fans and the fence sitters are remaining. Same for the 360.

You believe the PS3 launch was a success. I do not. I believe the 360 had a better launch.

Balthasar

02-23-2007, 05:48 AM

We interpret "success" differently. That's fine. Now predict the future sales results for 2007 and we'll come back to this thread later and see if you're right.
This is where you are mistaken. I'm not talking about absolute success. I'm talking about relative success. As I have already said, the 360 launch was a failure in my eyes, and the PS3 launch is no different. I'm not really clear on why I'm being required to predict the success of the PS3 based on three months of sales and no compelling games to speak of. I'll make a prediction when I can do one intelligently. I can tell you this: right now, it's just a fight for second place. The Wii will close the gap significantly before the year is out.

Jack B

02-23-2007, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Vanthar
Your posts are generally well thought out, but I think that in this case you are neglecting some other important factors. The PS3 is outselling the 360 in Japan by a pretty decent margin. It also has not even released in Europe, which seems (at least right now) that it remains a very Sony-inclined region. I would propose that currently the PS3 is very close to 360 worldwide sales with only being released in 2 major regions. Once it is available in all regions, it will become more clear whether Sony has any hope of overcoming Microsoft's lead.

Thanks. You're correct, that I quoted only the US NPD numbers. I didn't have the energy to look up the Japanese numbers. The Japan numbers, if I remember correctly have been very low. Lower than the US. In Europe the PS3 is getting zero, so if we had NPD numbers for Europe it likely would cancel Japan and then some.

I disagree, that worldwide the PS3 outsold the 360. I think Europe sells more than the differential in Japan. Maybe I'll hunt down the Japan numbers.

In any event, although Sony will get a big bump from Europe, they need about 800k a month more and that won't happen just by adding Europe when they're only selling 250k now in the US.

It will help, but they need big help, not 200k units a month help. I'm still waiting for the Microsoft price drop hammer to fall. It should counteract whatever Sony decides to do, which is likely no price drop and then possibly a match in price drop. Either way, the 360 will be less money to purchase, which is a very big factor in non hardcore fans buying decisions.

Microsoft has Sony by the balls when it comes to cost per unit.

Vanthar, I just found the numbers from Japan. These are from last week, so it's not a full month, but if you multiply by four, you can get close.

Nintendo DS Lite - 136,846
Wii - 63,618
PSP - 34,505
PLAYSTATION 3 - 20,676 (84,000 for a month approx)
PlayStation 2 - 16,192
Xbox 360 - 5,210 (20,000 for a month approx)
Game Boy micro - 953
Game Boy Advance SP - 843

I thought I remembered the Japan numbers were way below the North American numbers. The Japanese market is really weak right now for the PS3.

360 North America and Japan 319,000 plus Europe, which I don't have numbers for...
PS3 North America & Japan 333,000.

Bottom line seems to be that Sony lost ground from Nov to Dec against the 360. Then they had plenty of North America and Japan supply and maybe eeked out a win by 14,000 units. Add Europe in and the 360 definitely increased their lead in January. February will likely see the 360 lead again.

The European launch may help, but it's very possible the European launch will have an initial bump and then just help the PS3 stay even.

The PS3 needs about 800,000 units a month for 12 months to catch up in 2007. By the time March rolls around they'll need about 1,000,000 units a month, because they'll only have 10 months left.

Halo 3 is just around the corner. I don't think Sony has a prayer to catch the 360 in 2007. Just keeping up looks like a challenge to me...

bean19

02-25-2007, 07:03 AM

Edit: I totally forgot the PS3 numbers don't include a European launch, whereas the 360 numbers do. Hmmm.

You also forget to mention that 360s were sold out through March, so shortage in supply was the limiter for sales throughout the 3 months you compare units sold. Unlike the PS3, which is in ample supply, but is not selling as well even two months after it's launch.

I get the feeling you actually believe this stuff and aren't just spinning, and it makes me not want to talk to you.

I am a gamer. I love games, and I'm interested in the console war not because I have a favorite that I want to win (I honestly want a close competition). This means that I like to take part in objective (as much as possible) discussions about how the various consoles are doing. Your agenda really detracts from this. Half the thread becomes about pointing out your errors or deflecting poorly illustrated quips that you make.

But I get the feeling that you aren't trolling. That you believe this stuff. . . maybe I should just resign myself to not getting to have these discussions or try to ignore the bait.

Anyway, you frustrate me Balthasar. I guess I'm trying to get you to argue with the facts on hand. I don't think the PS3's position is all that weak either, but I do know that they are getting whipped pretty bad right now. Later on, when they can afford to lower their prices and the PS3 gets games, it will start to do better. I'm sure there must be a lot of people like me who want to own a PS3, but can't stomach a $600 purchase for a console that currently only has one game I'm at all interested in.

Balthasar

02-25-2007, 11:10 AM

You also forget to mention that 360s were sold out through March, so shortage in supply was the limiter for sales throughout the 3 months you compare units sold. Unlike the PS3, which is in ample supply, but is not selling as well even two months after it's launch.
Something at the back of my head tells me you are just pretending to be this obtuse, but in case you actually missed my post where I broke down sales after the supply problems of the 360 were corrected, here it is again:

If April was the time when more systems became available, and availability is what held the 360 back, I'd love for someone to explain this breakdown:

February 06: 161,000
March 06: 192,000
April 06: 295,381
May 06: 221,000
June 06: 277,000
July 06: 206,000

I'm sorry, but those numbers are not suggestive of the masses busting down the gates, now that the system was in greater availability. I mean, the sales actually get worse after the first month of so-called mass availability.

Your agenda really detracts from this. Half the thread becomes about pointing out your errors or deflecting poorly illustrated quips that you make.
1) What is my agenda?
2) When were any "errors" I made corrected? I've been citing numbers.
3) Do you realize you actually agreed (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=665754&postcount=89) with my original thesis? I mean, see for yourself:
Nope. It didn't really get a burst after the supply was fulfilled. Interesting point.

Anyway, you frustrate me Balthasar. I guess I'm trying to get you to argue with the facts on hand.
That's ironic, since I am the only one that has shown any interest in actually looking at those numbers, which are the only unequivocal facts in this whole debate.

duff himself

02-26-2007, 08:41 AM

Yes, I can say that Wii Madden 07 is better on the Wii than on the 360. In fact, it's the primary reason why I bought a Wii- and I own a 360 already.

thats why you decided on a wii? just go outside and throw a football if you wanted to simulate sports. i just don't understand how everyone is preaching the wii. i like nintendo and all of the mario this and that but i can't see it being more than a "side system" as some people on here have said. it sold mad copies and im glad they are doing well but i don't even compare the wii with 360 or ps3. nintendo has always done well as the "different" console. i don't really care about the numbers, i got the one i wanted.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 09:17 AM

That's ironic, since I am the only one that has shown any interest in actually looking at those numbers, which are the only unequivocal facts in this whole debate.

Huh? I think you're giving yourself too much credit. You aren't the only one to look at the numbers. You just interpret them differently than some others.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 10:01 AM

Huh? I think you're giving yourself too much credit. You aren't the only one to look at the numbers. You just interpret them differently than some others.
What are you talking about? No one (including yourself) even wants to acknowledge those sales figures. You keep finding a way to rationalize why sales from 2006 are not the same as sales from 2007 without confronting the fact that the availability of the 360 was overexaggerated with relation to its demand, as borne out by sales figures after supply was corrected. How can you interpret those numbers any other way? You're being dishonest with yourself if you're saying those sales numbers don't indicate that popular thesis was in fact incorrect.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 10:17 AM

What are you talking about? No one (including yourself) even wants to acknowledge those sales figures. You keep finding a way to rationalize why sales from 2006 are not the same as sales from 2007 without confronting the fact that the availability of the 360 was overexaggerated with relation to its demand, as borne out by sales figures after supply was corrected. How can you interpret those numbers any other way? You're being dishonest with yourself if you're saying those sales numbers don't indicate that popular thesis was in fact incorrect.

All those numbers indicate is that 360 consoles didn't tracked fairly flat until the fall. You could construe that if the supply had been there in Jan or Feb, that the 360 wouldn't have sold more than a 100-200k more units.

I'm fine with that, but we already "know" the PS3 wouldn't have, because it does have supply in January and February. No need to speculate. Supply is there.

You've chosen to believe, that this fact makes the PS3 launch just as good as the 360 launch, but you can't compare the two launches until you define, "by what measure"... These launches happened 1 year apart.

If the PS3 had launched in Nov '05, the 360 launch would have been horrible. The PS3 would have killed it. If you use that as your barometer, the PS3 launch is horrible, because it's one year late and much worse than it could have been.

If you use the "what should the Expectation for the PS3 launch" determinant, then that even changes over time. For a LONG time the PS3 was expected to "sell" or at least ship and sell out most of 6 million units by March/April of 2007. By that expectation, the PS3 launch was a disaster. The 360 launch was never expected to be as good as it was. Selling out through Feb was totally unexpected by most. It was huge success, because it was the underdog. The PS3 was expected to dominate. It had 70% market share or nearly triple the 360's last gen.

The PS3 has come no where near 70% market share even during this launch window with inventory on shelves. That's not an equal success in my mind. The 360 was the underdog, not the leader. You have your own opinion, but it's not supposed to be "neck and neck" on monthly sales right now in my opinion. No one at Sony is doing cart wheels behind closed doors, so I can't agree, the PS3 launch is a success.

There, I've commented on your numbers and we disagree on their interpretation. The PS3 will also struggle in the late Spring early summer and won't catch the 360 in 2007, if at all. That's not a successful launch to me and I'm looking at the numbers.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 10:40 AM

All those numbers indicate is that 360 consoles didn't tracked fairly flat until the fall. You could construe that if the supply had been there in Jan or Feb, that the 360 wouldn't have sold more than a 100-200k more units.

I'm fine with that, but we already "know" the PS3 wouldn't have, because it does have supply in January and February. No need to speculate. Supply is there.
There's no need to speculate in either case, because we know what the 360 sold like with limited supply, and what it sold like without limited supply. You continue to discount the fact that the sales numbers show the so-called waiting throngs of customers looking to get a 360 didn't really exist in the first place, since they didn't show up to the party until the 360's library was bolstered.

You've chosen to believe, that this fact makes the PS3 launch just as good as the 360 launch
No, not just as good, just as bad. It's a subtle difference, I know, but it's worth getting correct. Also, I haven't "chosen" to believe anything. The facts are the facts. 360 sales numbers without next gen competition are comparable to PS3 sales numbers with TWO competitors. I'll post the numbers again if you want to argue "comparable." It doesn't matter that it's easier for you to get a PS3 now than a 360 when it was released, because the sales numbers after greater 360 availability do not bear out that thesis. There's no proof to support that position. All you can do is give anecdotes.

If you use the "what should the Expectation for the PS3 launch" determinant, then that even changes over time. For a LONG time the PS3 was expected to "sell" or at least ship and sell out most of 6 million units by March/April of 2007. By that expectation, the PS3 launch was a disaster.
That is completely irrelevant. Fan expectation doesn't equal reality. If I expect a movie to make 300 million on its opening weekend but it only makes 60 million, it is not a disaster, or a failure. The only thing that merits criticism here are the expectations, which were out of touch with the reality of the situation.

There, I've commented on your numbers and we disagree on their interpretation. The PS3 will also struggle in the late Spring early summer and won't catch the 360 in 2007, if at all. That's not a successful launch to me and I'm looking at the numbers.
You haven't commented on any of the numbers. Instead, you've attempted to divert attention away from those numbers to create imaginary scenarios where selling 200,000 units doesn't actually mean selling 200,000 units. The 360 struggled in its launch. The PS3 is currently struggling in its launch. You've given no factual evidence to refute this.

P.S. I never commented on the PS3 catching up with the 360, and discussions on it are pretty irrelevant anyway, so I don't see what point there is to brining it up other than to divert the discussion into something its not. Not even the most hardended fanboys think the PS3 will sell 10 mil units in its first year out.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 11:19 AM

Balthasar. I'm in sales management. To me a success is built on quota's and expectations.

If this were a fight and a Muhammad Ali were to fight a 98 kid in high school a "success" wouldn't be a tie. That's been my point from the get go and we're not connecting.

The PS3 was expected, 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 6 months ago to have a significantly better launch. The numbers are the same for the 360 and the PS3. The definition of success is very different. Not for you, but for me at least.

I don't think many people define success by tying your weaker competitor. They were expecting to sell 6 million units. If Halo 3 sells as many units as Barbies Horse Adventures, don't give me a bunch of sales figures showing both games were equal failures or successes. The expectation is what success is defined by. And by all accounts the PS3 launch could not have been worse. Halo 3 should dominate Barbies Horse Adventures. If it ties, then that's a failure. The bar of success is at a different level.

It didn't even launch in Europe yet. Comparing equal unit sales figures is not a fair comparision of launch success, IMO.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 12:22 PM

Balthasar. I'm in sales management. To me a success is built on quota's and expectations.
The sort of expectations that we talk about in sales and the sort of expectations you are talking about are quite different. Sales expectations should be based on factual predictions, they should take economics and competition in account, and they should not be based on "fan hype." If I say that the PS3 is going to sell 40 million consoles this year, missing that mark cannot legitimately be considered a "disappointment" from a buisness perspective. Furthermore, once again, I did not argue that the PS3's launch was good or a success, so stop trying to frame it that way. I said both the PS3 and 360's launch were failures. Failures.

If this were a fight and a Muhammad Ali were to fight a 98 kid in high school a "success" wouldn't be a tie. That's been my point from the get go and we're not connecting.
Not to be rude, but I don't think you're making a lot of sense here. I don't know what this analogy is supposed to mean (what is a "98 kid in high school?"), and I don't see how it relates to the real sales of the PS3 vs the real sales of the 360. Your only argument here is that the 360's sales somehow weren't real, which is nonsense.

I don't think many people define success by tying your weaker competitor.
This stance is also nonsense (not to mention, again, besides the point). Microsoft is not a weaker competitor. The idea that in any arena someone can call Microsoft "weak" is ludicrous. Microsoft is able to spend hand-over fist to undercut the competition in whatever market they attempt to conquer and can afford failures like nothing more than a papercut. See the Zune as a great example of this. Just because Microsoft did not sell as many of a different product than Sony did a couple of years ago does not make them "weak," or "weaker," or any other qualitative pejorative you want to throw out there.

They were expecting to sell 6 million units.
Yes, by March. They're likely going to miss their mark. Remember when Microsoft made similar predictions and had to push back those expectations into the summer months? Guess what? Both companies missed the mark.

The expectation is what success is defined by. And by all accounts the PS3 launch could not have been worse.
So, hypothetically, I am Sony Corp's COO. I tell newspapers that I expect the PS3 to sell about 500,000 consoles through the end of 2007, because its a very expensive piece of hardware. Meanwhile, my direct competiton expects to hit around 10 mil in the same timespan. My console jumps over my own expectation easily, but it is routinely outsold by my competition at a ratio of 2:1. The competition also prices their hardware at almost half of what mine costs, but performs about the same. Is the PS3 a success under these conditions? Don't give me "I'm in sales management" if you dare answer yes to that.

Halo 3 should dominate Barbies Horse Adventures. If it ties, then that's a failure. The bar of success is at a different level.
Wrong. Success is somewhat relative, but there still has to be a consistant baseline to measure it. That is, if Barbie Horse Adventures sells 10 mil copies in the U.S. alone, and Halo sells 8 million, Halo has not failed; Barbie has been tremendously successful. Halo is expected to perform above the average console title, but it cannot be expected to perform above any and all console titles. If Barbie sells 200,000 copies, and Halo sells 300,000 copies, Halo isn't a failure because its numbers are too similar to a game viewed as less viable. It's a failure because it performed under what its predecessors did and what the market average is for a game expected to turn a profit. Again, all of this is intentionally trying to distract from the facts of the matter. Where did you see any viable analyst predictions stating that the PS3 would somehow take 70% of the market (or whatever ridiculous number you came up with) within three months of being released? It was obvious even a month before launch that the PS3 would be lucky to sell 1 mil before the holiday season was over, with less than 300,000 consoles even being available for purchase.

It didn't even launch in Europe yet. Comparing equal unit sales figures is not a fair comparision of launch success, IMO.
That's funny, because it's unfair...to the PS3. Unless you think launching in Europe can some how subtract the sales that PS3 has already had. At some point, you're going to have to take off your fanboy hat and admit your argument is pretty weak.

torrefaction

02-26-2007, 12:26 PM

The only thing I have to add to all that is that I find it fucking HILARIOUS that Barbie Horse Adventures has become well known among gamers.

The backwards compatibility list was good for something :D

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 12:39 PM

The only thing I have to add to all that is that I find it fucking HILARIOUS that Barbie Horse Adventures has become well known among gamers.
I would love it if its next iteration matched Halo 3 sales. The fan reaction is sure to be hillarious.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 12:50 PM

I would love it if its next iteration matched Halo 3 sales. The fan reaction is sure to be hillarious.

Why? Given your approach to what is success, Bungie would just need to say, we've sold as many as we wanted to. It's a success. Why just look at the numbers. We sold as many as Barbies Horse Adventures. That's good to us. I don't know what you were expecting...

Balthasar, you and I are soooo far apart, it's like we are speaking different languages.

The 360 launch was a much bigger success than the PS3's. You think the facts support, that they were equal. Fine. I disagree. The facts say the unit shipments were equal, but I believe the expectations for the PS3 were much higher, thus it was a far worse launch.

Think what you like. I'll not change your mind.

bean19

02-26-2007, 12:56 PM

There's no need to speculate in either case, because we know what the 360 sold like with limited supply, and what it sold like without limited supply. You continue to discount the fact that the sales numbers show the so-called waiting throngs of customers looking to get a 360 didn't really exist in the first place, since they didn't show up to the party until the 360's library was bolstered.

Well it makes sense that as sales slow, supply will catch demand. This is probably why the 360 didn't show a jump in sales in April 2006 when it became readily available everywhere (it was still sold out or in highly limited supply in some markets throughout March - largely because of Oblivion and GRAW 2).

It was the slowdown in demand that created the supply. This is significant because the PS3 has shown lower demand. Despite similar montly sells over a period of time, the PS3 is now available and not selling as well as the year-old 360.

My points in this thread that you have disputed:

1. The PS3 not selling as many units only two months after it's launch as the 360 is selling more than a year after it's launch is surprising and not a good sign for the PS3.

2. While the 360 and the PS3 show similar sales for their first months of release in the U.S., the 360's sales were limited by a lack of supply. The PS3 had supply in January and should have sold better than the 360 did in January 2006 because it was capable of selling more.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 02:04 PM

Why? Given your approach to what is success, Bungie would just need to say, we've sold as many as we wanted to. It's a success. Why just look at the numbers. We sold as many as Barbies Horse Adventures. That's good to us. I don't know what you were expecting...
That's how you look at it, which also happens to be wrong. That's not how I look at it, and I'm pretty sure no executive worth his job looks at it that way either. The sales of Barbie's Horse Adventures have about as much to do with the success of Halo as the sales of the Sims or Pokemon. Which is to say, not at all. Selling 1 million copies of a software is still, in this day and age, a success. If Halo 3 comes out and only sells 1.5 million copies, it still sold well. It did not sell as well as previous Halo games, but that doesn't change the fact that it sold 1.5 million copies. If Spiderman 3 doesn't break some first week box office record, that doesn't mean it hasn't been successful, as crazy as some people would like to be with their comparative analysis.

Balthasar, you and I are soooo far apart, it's like we are speaking different languages.
I agree. I speak the language of facts and figures. You speak the language of spin. How well do accountants get along with advertising reps? :p

The 360 launch was a much bigger success than the PS3's.
No.

360 Sales:
1st month: 326,000 (bad shortage)
2nd month: 281,441
3rd month: 249,000

PS3 Sales:
1st month: 197,000 (worse shortage)
2nd month: 490,700
3rd month: 244,000

Well it makes sense that as sales slow, supply will catch demand. This is probably why the 360 didn't show a jump in sales in April 2006 when it became readily available everywhere (it was still sold out or in highly limited supply in some markets throughout March - largely because of Oblivion and GRAW 2).
I can't tell if you're actually agreeing with me or I am misunderstanding you, but I think this assessment is correct. I think every spike you see in 360 sales can be accounted for by major software releases, which is why those summer sales were so stale. Likewise, I would expect PS3 sales to stagnate until truly compelling titles are released. Being in all of the same markets as its competiton should also help.

It was the slowdown in demand that created the supply. This is significant because the PS3 has shown lower demand. Despite similar montly sells over a period of time, the PS3 is now available and not selling as well as the year-old 360.
Again, here, I have to disagree, and all you have to do is look at the sales figures for the same period of time to see why that assertion is wrong. Given similar sales, for the PS3 to have greater availability is much more likely to mean it had greater supply, not necessarily lower demand. There's no way you can get the math to work any other way. The only way you can prove there was actually greater demand for the 360 is if you can quantitatively prove that the 360 lost sales (which is practically impossible) or if you can show a sizeable increase in sales after an increased supply not due to other factors. Of course, given that consoles sales don't happen in a closed environment, the best you can do is show a correlation between the 360's sales and increased availability, and as you yourself already noted, it doesn't work. Whether it happened or not, there is no tangible proof of this theory.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 02:19 PM

That's how you look at it, which also happens to be wrong.

Now, that's funny. You sure no how to settle an argument. I win!

360 Sales:
1st month: 326,000 (bad shortage)
2nd month: 281,441
3rd month: 249,000

PS3 Sales:
1st month: 197,000 (worse shortage)
2nd month: 490,700
3rd month: 244,000

Let's look at your numbers. I think they may be wrong. This is what Wikipedia says.

Wikipedia on the 360 launch numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_launch#Regional_sales)

360 Sales 1st 90 days:
Worldwide = Somewhere around 2.5 million units.

From Wikipedia:
Analysts believe Microsoft did not meet the original worldwide target of 2.75-3 million units sold in the first 90 days after launch,[15] and Microsoft revised their initial 90 day estimate down to 2.5 million units

Thus, your numbers show a little over 1 million for the 360. It looks like you left out about 1.5 million units. You have the Sony launch at around 900k?

So, if it's 2.5 million +/- for the 1st 90 days for Microsoft's 360 and you have 900k down for the PS3, how do you figure the 360's launch was worse? You can't "not count" Europe, because you're all about the numbers. Even counting Japan, you'll come up short.

Remember, I'm speaking completely about the numbers? Personally, I think whether it's sales quotas or Analysts expectations which drive a stock price every quarter, a success or failure is graded on expectations, not just unit sales or revenue or even profit.

Success is beating expectations, failure is missing expectations, but regardless. Even using your raw numbers only definition of success, the PS3 is short of the 360's launch numbers.

Where did you get your numbers?

Chameleo

02-26-2007, 02:28 PM

Where did you get your numbers?

his numbers look like North America *only* for both console launches.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 02:34 PM

his numbers look like North America *only* for both console launches.

Yep, that's what I figured. How you can say it's all about the numbers and then not include worldwide numbers is beyond me.

Chameleo

02-26-2007, 03:11 PM

Yep, that's what I figured. How you can say it's all about the numbers and then not include worldwide numbers is beyond me.

well a worldwide launch didn't happen for sony. so it'd be unfair to compare the 360s worldwide launch to sony's USA/Japan only launch.

but then that pretty much sums up the argument all together; because sony's launch didn't go worldwide, the 360 launch was automatically more successful, regardless of units pushed.

torrefaction

02-26-2007, 03:14 PM

well a worldwide launch didn't happen for sony. so it'd be unfair to compare the 360s worldwide launch to sony's USA/Japan only launch.

but then that pretty much sums up the argument all together; because sony's launch didn't go worldwide, the 360 launch was automatically more successful, regardless of units pushed.

How is that unfair when your talking in relative turns of successful launches. MS outstripped Sony comparatively in sales in a SINGLE market. Sony had trouble even meeting THOSE demands, let alone worldwide.

Clearly in those terms, Sony failed to deliver.

Chameleo

02-26-2007, 03:25 PM

How is that unfair when your talking in relative turns of successful launches. MS outstripped Sony comparatively in sales in a SINGLE market. Sony had trouble even meeting THOSE demands, let alone worldwide.

Clearly in those terms, Sony failed to deliver.

yeah i agree. i think, because the 360 pulled off a worldwide launch, they had a better launch.

if you're counting consoles sold though, and you want to get a good comparison shot, you shouldn't include numbers from regions where the competition didn't go.

you want to see how the consoles did against each other on the same turf, under (relatively) the same conditions....

torrefaction

02-26-2007, 03:31 PM

yeah i agree. i think, because the 360 pulled off a worldwide launch, they had a better launch.

if you're counting consoles sold though, and you want to get a good comparison shot, you shouldn't include numbers from regions where the competition didn't go.

you want to see how the consoles did against each other on the same turf, under (relatively) the same conditions....

Agreed, but what we're talking about is the relative success of the launches. The 360 clearly shipped and sold many more consoles in the early days of it's release.

What's not fair is the lack of Japanese numbers.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 03:38 PM

Let's look at your numbers. I think they may be wrong. This is what Wikipedia says.
That's probably the third time I quoted those numbers. Odd that only now do you begin to question them, while simultaneously ignoring any other substantive part of the argument. Be that as it may, I got the numbers from vgcharts. See (http://www.vgcharts.com/page3.html) for yourself. And yes, they appear to be U.S. only for both consoles, so neither take into account Japan sales. That it excludes European sales is all the better, seeing as how the PS3 has not launched in Europe yet anyway. I do wish it had included Japan's sales, but I think the point is made quite clearly regardless.

torrefaction

02-26-2007, 03:45 PM

That's probably the third time I quoted those numbers. Odd that only now do you begin to question them, while simultaneously ignoring any other substantive part of the argument. Be that as it may, I got the numbers from vgcharts. See (http://www.vgcharts.com/page3.html) for yourself. And yes, they appear to be U.S. only for both consoles, so neither take into account Japan sales. That it excludes European sales is all the better, seeing as how the PS3 has not launched in Europe yet anyway. I do wish it had included Japan's sales, but I think the point is made quite clearly regardless.

But how does this play into your claim that Sony's launch was on par with the 360's? Sony had more delays overall, as well as slipping the launch date for Europe even farther. On top of that, they didn't hit close to the number of consoles Microsoft had out the gate.

To make matters even worse, they're shipping a feature-reduced PS3 to the EU.

Microsoft had supply issues due to a worldwide launch, and still kept up on par with the PS3's launch sales.

Overall, I think that Microsoft had a FAR better launch in terms of sales, production, and distribution.

As far as content, I feel like both consoles fell on their face a little.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 03:45 PM

That's probably the third time I quoted those numbers. Odd that only now do you begin to question them, while simultaneously ignoring any other substantive part of the argument. Be that as it may, I got the numbers from vgcharts. See (http://www.vgcharts.com/page3.html) for yourself. And yes, they appear to be U.S. only for both consoles, so neither take into account Japan sales. That it excludes European sales is all the better, seeing as how the PS3 has not launched in Europe yet anyway. I do wish it had included Japan's sales, but I think the point is made quite clearly regardless.

The reason I never challenged the numbers is because we have a difference in opinion about whether they tell the whole picture. I don't think they do, so what does it matter, that Microsoft shipped more units Worldwide.

I base my opinion of the Sony launch based upon that I believe the Microsoft offices in Redmond were jumping for joy in February of last year and the Sony employees are standing on a ledge and if they're thinking about jumping it's not for joy.

To me, being even with the 360 shipments is a disaster, even if they had launched in Europe and were actually even worldwide. They are the king. They dominated last generation by 3 to 1 over Microsoft. They should be outselling Microsoft 3 to 1 right now, not being even (or worse) with PS3's sitting on shelves.

That's why a few hundred thousand units here or there just don't matter to me in this discussion.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 05:04 PM

But how does this play into your claim that Sony's launch was on par with the 360's? Sony had more delays overall, as well as slipping the launch date for Europe even farther. On top of that, they didn't hit close to the number of consoles Microsoft had out the gate.
In the territories they both sold in, the PS3 sold about as well or better. I don't see how can be considered good business to spread your product out so thin you can't meet demand. Microsoft themselves admitted the worldwide launch was a mistake and if given the opportunity, would probably not do one again (at least under the same conditions). Again, my point here was that both launches were bad. I don't think either of these two companies did a good job. That the reasons they didn't do well are different doesn't change the fact of the matter.

To make matters even worse, they're shipping a feature-reduced PS3 to the EU.
Wasn't there some news out of European territories that pre-sales were through the roof?

Microsoft had supply issues due to a worldwide launch, and still kept up on par with the PS3's launch sales.
Again, no one has been able to supply evidence to substantiate the idea that sales would have been appreciably better if the console were more readily available.

As far as content, I feel like both consoles fell on their face a little.
Agreed, but don't tell that to people that think Kameo is a good reason to invest in a $499 first-gen console.

They are the king. They dominated last generation by 3 to 1 over Microsoft. They should be outselling Microsoft 3 to 1 right now, not being even (or worse) with PS3's sitting on shelves.
Their console costs at least $100 more than a console that itself costs more than the average consumer wants to spend on gaming. Their console was also released along side another alternative that costs almost half as much. Their console also has (arguably) the least compelling games available. Under what logic allows the PS3 to have the realistic expectation of outselling the competition 3-1? The PS2 doing it does not mean that its successor should do the same. There is not a reason in the world why this should be expected. Different hardware, different price, different library, different level of competition. Worse economy.

Johan

02-26-2007, 05:11 PM

Again, no one has been able to supply evidence to substantiate the idea that sales would have been appreciably better if the console were more readily available.

How the hell would ANYONE be able to do that? Unless you're a whiz statistician, you can't come close to any kind of "substantiation" of POTENTIAL sales if supply increased. Even a terrific statistician would be hypothesizing, with ultimately no real 'proof.'

Your statement is silly.

bean19

02-26-2007, 05:20 PM

Again, no one has been able to supply evidence to substantiate the idea that sales would have been appreciably better if the console were more readily available.

No one should have to.

Isn't it elementary to suppose that if something is SELLING OUT EVERYWHERE, that greater supply would result in greater sells. . . especially in the 2nd month (December = Xmas), when the PS3 is ahead of the 360 - thus allowing the total numbers for the first 3 months to be comparable?

Do you really NEED a statistician to quantify that for you?

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 05:20 PM

Your statement is silly.
How is my statement sillier than one that presupposes a stance that cannot be proven? I'm saying a theory without evidence must be considered null. You're saying that's silly because you can't be expected to prove the theory? Explain that logic to me.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 06:09 PM

Isn't it elementary to suppose that if something is SELLING OUT EVERYWHERE, that greater supply would result in greater sells...
Um, no. That assumes price does not exist and is of no object to an infinite number of consumers.

Without getting too much into the theories of supply and demand, have you noticed how 360 sales hardly ever go above 300,000 in the U.S.? If not for two significant outliers, the average would be around 222,594 sold per month. Ever wonder why?

Johan

02-26-2007, 06:14 PM

How is my statement sillier than one that presupposes a stance that cannot be proven? I'm saying a theory without evidence must be considered null. You're saying that's silly because you can't be expected to prove the theory? Explain that logic to me.

No .

Jack B

02-26-2007, 06:18 PM

Their console costs at least $100 more than a console that itself costs more than the average consumer wants to spend on gaming. Their console was also released along side another alternative that costs almost half as much. Their console also has (arguably) the least compelling games available. Under what logic allows the PS3 to have the realistic expectation of outselling the competition 3-1? The PS2 doing it does not mean that its successor should do the same. There is not a reason in the world why this should be expected. Different hardware, different price, different library, different level of competition. Worse economy.

You're making my point for me. I'd agree with you 100%. It's no wonder the PS3 isn't outselling the 360 by 3 to 1, but that's because you've reset your expecations based on what we know now.

The PS3 launch is a disaster based upon expectations at E3 '05 and E3 '06. I'd even argue a couple of months before the launch and even a few days after the launch people still expected the PS3 to destroy the 360 for the 3 months from mid Nov to Mid Feb.

It didn't happen. It didn't even come close. This would have shocked any Sony fan at E3 '06. The launch was a disaster unless you reset your expectations. Sony expected to be outselling the 360 over the past 3 months by 2 or 3 to 1.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 06:23 PM

You're making my point for me. I'd agree with you 100%. It's no wonder the PS3 isn't outselling the 360 by 3 to 1, but that's because you've reset your expecations based on what we know now.
Um, no? I haven't reset any expectations. I never had those insanely unrealistic expectations about the PS3. You still keep dancing around this highly subjective point while leapfrogging over much more distinctly objective facts.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 06:32 PM

Um, no? I haven't reset any expectations. I never had those insanely unrealistic expectations about the PS3. You still keep dancing around this highly subjective point while leapfrogging over much more distinctly objective facts.

Bingo! And that's why you think the PS3 launch was comparable to the 360's. Expectations... Yours were abnormally low. None of the Sony execs, or the average Sony fan or the industry analysts shared your expectations.

Most people expected a promissed Worldwide launch (in Europe) with close to 6 million sold thru April with full online support, 30 launch games etc. Every month, that expectation started to drop.

By the time April rolls around, "success will be 2 million sold worldwide".

You were in the minority. The gaming world was very surprised and every week we get more bad Sony news. The launch was not nearly as successful as the 360's launch.

Johan

02-26-2007, 06:34 PM

You still keep dancing...while leapfrogging...

Make up your damn mind! Which one is he doing, anyways??

Jack B

02-26-2007, 06:42 PM

Make up your damn mind! Which one is he doing, anyways??

Technically, I was Leap Dancing. It's a little known variant of Irish Riverdancing and the Polka.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 06:43 PM

Bingo! And that's why you think the PS3 launch was comparable to the 360's. Expectations... Yours were abnormally low.
How were they abnormally low? You don't even know where they were. You're hunting for anything that could prove your theory, and I'm not about to help you out. Stick to the facts.

Until you can show me that 200,000 consoles sold from one company is quantitatively better than another company selling the same number, you're just chasing your tail.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 06:59 PM

How were they abnormally low? You don't even know where they were. You're hunting for anything that could prove your theory, and I'm not about to help you out. Stick to the facts.

Until you can show me that 200,000 consoles sold from one company is quantitatively better than another company selling the same number, you're just chasing your tail.

OK, you tell me what your expectations were.... At E3 '06, you're telling me you would have expected all this????

1. No European launch at all 'til March.
2. The Wii to outsell the PS3 in Japan.
3. The PS3 to sell 20k units a month in Japan.
4. The PS3 to have no background downloading, no ingame chat, no ingame invites, and a bunch of games without online at all.
5. The Isomotion chip to be removed from the PS3's in Europe for software emulation with no reduction in price.
6. For the 360 to outsell the PS3 in North America from Nov, Dec, Jan.
7. For not a single PS3 game to have a consensus score over 90.
8. For the press from mainstream press from Time Magazine to the NY Times to call the PS3 launch a total disaster.

I could go on, but let's just leave this list at 8.

What exactly were you expecting? If you were expecting all this, then yep the launch wasn't as bad as it could have been. If you were like most people, all of these things come as a shock.

The PS3 launch was a disaster and if you don't think so, I stand by my statement, that your expectations were abnormally low. There I go leap dancing again.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 07:00 PM

Make up your damn mind! Which one is he doing, anyways??
Fine, so he's doing a pirouette around the substance of the discussion to better Grand Jete over the numbers, statistics which remain indisputable. Clunky enough for you?

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 07:05 PM

OK, you tell me what your expectations were.... At E3 '06, you're telling me you would have expected all this????
1) No. My expectations are irrelevant. I as one individual do not determine all of the variables of supply and demand. I am not the market.

2) E3 2006 is irrelevant. While E3 is a marketing convention, E3 does not actually determine market forces--including elasticity--though it certainly tries to. It certainly doesn't help console sales when you can't pre-order the product at the time of the convention.

P.S. I notice you're still trying to frame my argument as being positive toward the PS3 launch. Your theory is inconsistent when you consider that I see both the 360 and PS3 launches as failures. Your reasoning behind why I supposedly think the PS3 launch was okay (which I don't) does not account for why I think the 360 launch was bad. Keep trying, though. To be honest, I'm on autopilot now, since you're no longer bringing anything new or provoking to the debate. Perhaps when you stop trying to invent my position we'll get somewhere.

bean19

02-26-2007, 07:14 PM

Um, no. That assumes price does not exist and is of no object to an infinite number of consumers.

Balthasar - This is your response to my question that basically asks whether or not the 360 could have sold more units following it's launch (and especially during Xmas) if it had greater supply.

Can you see why I think that your "logic" jumps ship a lot?

It doesn't take a statistician to assume that the 360 would have sold more - especially in the months of sales we are comparing - if the supply had not been deficient. There were threads on Evil Avatar for MONTHS that would help to alert people wanting a 360 on how they might purchase one.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 07:14 PM

1) No. My expectations are irrelevant. I as one individual do not determine all of the variables of supply and demand. I am not the market.

2) E3 2006 is irrelevant. E3 was a marketing convention. E3 does not determine market forces including elasticity, though it certainly tries to.

Nope, they are relevant. That's how people measure success. Sony failed on all 8 of the objectives I listed.

Here is Webster's definition of success.

Main Entry: suc·ceed
Pronunciation: s&k-'sEd
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English succeden, from Anglo-French succeeder, from Latin succedere to go up, follow after, succeed, from sub- near + cedere to go -- more at SUB-
intransitive verb
1 a : to come next after another in office or position or in possession of an estate; especially : to inherit sovereignty, rank, or title b : to follow after another in order
2 a : to turn out well b : to attain a desired object or end <students who succeed in college>3 obsolete : to pass to a person by inheritance
transitive verb
1 : to follow in sequence and especially immediately
2 : to come after as heir or successor
synonym see FOLLOW
- suc·ceed·er noun

They did not reach their desired outcome on many many levels. Your definition of "desired outcome", Sony's definition, my definition are all used to decide if something is successful.

I go into meetings everyday and before the meeting we discuss what are we trying to accomplish. What is our goal and success criteria? It changes in every meeting.

Expectations define whether or not something is deemed a success. You don't seem to want to define what sucess was. You want to look back at what happened and rewrite history to define what success should have been.

I suppose that's how history books get written too. After the fact, but Sony failed on almost every objective. That's not success.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 07:16 PM

I suppose that's how history books get written too. After the fact, but Sony failed on almost every objective. That's not success.
Quit it with the straw man. I never said Sony succeeded in their launch. Stop. Stop. Stop.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 07:24 PM

Quit it with the straw man. I never said Sony succeeded in their launch. Stop. Stop. Stop.

Fair enough. Would it be fair to say you believe Sony failed equally to the 360? Good, then let's disagree.

Sony failed more and had a worse launch. The launched missed on so many objectives. Many more than the 360's launch. Here we are one year later with people saying, gasp, "Sony may lose the console war". No one expected that... The PS3 launch was worse.

I've been having fun, but I'm getting tired. I suppose we should call this a draw. Everyone is probably getting dumber as a result of reading our posts.

bean19

02-26-2007, 07:30 PM

1) No. My expectations are irrelevant. I as one individual do not determine all of the variables of supply and demand. I am not the market.

This is actually true. However, I'm sure you're bright enough to see that Jack B isn't really interested in your opinion of these expectations but simply trying to force you into taking a position that you would have to logically support. Your refusal shows that you have probably followed this line of thought to it's logical conclusion and thus are avoiding taking a firm position.

In any case, Sony's expectations (and those of their investors) are relevant. We don't have to speculate about their expectations either. They've shared them with us on many occassions and they were just pointed out to you.

Which brings us back to your dodging.

Jack B

02-26-2007, 07:45 PM

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 08:10 PM

This is actually true. However, I'm sure you're bright enough to see that Jack B isn't really interested in your opinion of these expectations but simply trying to force you into taking a position that you would have to logically support. Your refusal shows that you have probably followed this line of thought to it's logical conclusion and thus are avoiding taking a firm position.
I would present a position on this matter if I thought it made a difference. The only thing presenting a position does here is allow Jack B to present more straw men. So you're certainly half-right. Anyway, I doubt he could actually do much with my position, especially if I'm allowed to frame it first. I just want to get this discussion on track, or else end it.

In any case, Sony's expectations (and those of their investors) are relevant. We don't have to speculate about their expectations either. They've shared them with us on many occassions and they were just pointed out to you.
They're somewhat relevant, but they're not the end-all. A good comparison, if you follow baseball, is the Yankees. Due to the enormous success they've had decade after decade beginning in the 20s, the fans and management have unusually lofty expectations of the team more often than not. For a lot of Yankees fans and the owner, George Steinbrenner, a World Series title marks success. Anything else marks a failure. By extension, the 2003 season, where the Yankees lost the Series in 6 games was a failure. While Steinbrenner is allowed to believe this, no logical sports fan can say winning around 100 games and making it to the series is a "failure." By that same token, corporations make predictions on certain product lines for a few reasons, not the least of which is to allow for appropriate budgets to be set and in hopes of increasing stock prices. They need to set a bar of confidence for existing and future stock holders. But whatever their reasons are for making predictions, they don't get to determine what is objectively a successful period of sales and what isn't. For a simpler example: If I'm a high school student with a 3.8 GPA and I decide that my first year in college, I should be at least a 3.7 student, have I failed to perform well because my average is a 3.5, or have I simply failed to meet my expectations? Big difference.

Balthasar

02-26-2007, 08:14 PM

Balthasar - This is your response to my question that basically asks whether or not the 360 could have sold more units following it's launch (and especially during Xmas) if it had greater supply.
You didn't ask if the 360 could have sold more. You asked if one should not automatically assume this (you know your exact words, which is probably why you didn't quote yourself properly). There is a big difference here.

It doesn't take a statistician to assume that the 360 would have sold more - especially in the months of sales we are comparing - if the supply had not been deficient. There were threads on Evil Avatar for MONTHS that would help to alert people wanting a 360 on how they might purchase one.
Can you please explain to me where all those people went when the supply increased? And why, outside of two significant outliers, the 360 has averaged about 220,000 consoles sold per month (you could guess that figure just by eyeballing month-to-month stats in the U.S.)? And when I say explain, I don't mean speculate, since we're ready to make presumptions.

bean19

02-27-2007, 03:26 AM

Can you please explain to me where all those people went when the supply increased? And why, outside of two significant outliers, the 360 has averaged about 220,000 consoles sold per month (you could guess that figure just by eyeballing month-to-month stats in the U.S.)? And when I say explain, I don't mean speculate, since we're ready to make presumptions.

That's my point. You don't need statistics to know this. It should be obvious.

The fact that it isn't obvious to you that the 360 would have sold more (especially during the holiday season) if there was greater supply is what calls the rest of your arguments into question.

It's like talking to someone who insists that the sky isn't blue. Maybe you are attempting a philosophical argument, but you haven't made that clear. If so, then I'll quietly stop reply because I've heard it all before and playing the philosophy card is just a way to change the subject.