NPD September 2008

[Rangers]

LTD
Wii 12,547,000 (42.8%)
360 11,242,200 (38.4%)
PS3 5,494,400 (18.8%)

PS3 would have to outsell 360 by an average 200k a month for 28 months to overtake it in USA. That would put us in early 2011, really mid 011 considering PS3's prospects to gain ground the next three months are dim.

Granted it actually is possible, the volume in Nov/Dec is high enough to gain much more than 200k those months, and perhaps PS3 will take off like a firecracker upon reaching 299 or something, and start selling 400k per month.

However, it seems very unlikely at this point, unless MS just abandons 360. If they dont, it seems they would take countermeasures should PS3 ever start drubbing them.

 

[Rangers]

With Vgchartz and EEDAR (I pay special attention to EEDAR over somebody like Pachter because they claim to have "retail sampling") both being pretty close in their NPD predictions the last couple months, and stable weekly sales trends, it feels like NPD is becoming reasonably predictable beforehand.

It looks like we'll be looking at ~280K 360, ~170K PS3 next month so far. Somewhere in that range. While Wii is currently tracking at no less than 700k for the month, but then again Wii weekly sales fluctuate wildly with supply so perhaps it will come down.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Next month should be up because the holiday swarming starts. I'm sure department stores are unpacking/planning their Christmas decorations.

 

[Tap In]

good boost for 360 sales, 42%, considering recent price drop and bad economy and typical lackluster September. PS3 is typical and Wii is an anomaly as it is every month. :smile:

I think the holiday and beyond is where the magic $199 price point is proven. Although 42% is pretty danged good in one month... almost HALF again as many sales as the month previous. To put it in perspective, if that 42% increase were to be based on August to Sept sales for a whole year... (115,000 units/month over PS3), 360 would increase it's LTD sales lead sales in NA over PS3 by 1.38 million next year. Most likely it will be even higher with holiday sales.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There are some quite big releases on both HD platforms in October as well, like Fable 2, Dead Space, Bioshock - software will go up almost certainly, and I would not be surprised to see good hardware sales as well.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Personally, I just want the PS3 at 299 for purely selfish reasons. I agree that it's not completely necessary or even wise financially, but I actually had hoped Sony had a sound enough hardware strategy that they could go $299 without too much worry by now.

I think both XB360 and PS3 have been hampered on the technology-progression front and expected price reductions. I doubt either is playing to the original game-plan drawn up before launch, and both teams are adapting. Sony are clearly being more defensive at the moment regards funds. The best price-drop you could hope for is $50 I think, and I really don't rate that high either. We're seeing bundles. Japan is getting an LBP+2 Dual Shock controllers bundle for the same price. Added value has been what Sony have talked about and what they're pushing forwards now. I can't see any logical reason to push for massive sales at the moment if it's involving big losses, when a wait of a few months could offer the same growth at less/no loss thanks to a new revision.

 

[obonicus]

With Vgchartz and EEDAR (I pay special attention to EEDAR over somebody like Pachter because they claim to have "retail sampling") both being pretty close in their NPD predictions the last couple months, and stable weekly sales trends, it feels like NPD is becoming reasonably predictable beforehand.

Actually, EEDAR missed pretty spectacularly recently, I believe when the 20Gb discs were discounted they expected a big upswing that didn't happen.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Not very good PS3 numbers to me. It needs a price drop

Compared to what?

232k seems okay considering that the PS3 costs $400 and the nearest competition is $200.

They might want to have a price cut if they are in a rush to move out a lot of numbers in the holidays, but if that is not a priority then they can get along fine without a price cut, and wait until they manage to do some more cost reduction changes.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony's official line :

...sales of the console are now up by 94 per cent year-on-year, and up by 25 per cent over August.
Additionally, according to a statement, software is also performing strongly, with sales up year-on-year by over 130 per cent at 1.72 million units.

 

[Nesh]

Compared to what?

232k seems okay considering that the PS3 costs $400 and the nearest competition is $200.

They might want to have a price cut if they are in a rush to move out a lot of numbers in the holidays, but if that is not a priority then they can get along fine without a price cut, and wait until they manage to do some more cost reduction changes.

If I didnt factor competition I would have said that the PS3 does great considering the price point. And it does do well considering the price.

But the more a price drop is delayed the more potential consumers it loses from competition both currently and for the future. Sales trends create expectations and there is also the word of mouth effect. Whereas the PS3 showed big signs of a potential take over, now it shows less and less.

 

[Zassk]

Sony's official line :...sales of the console are now up by 94 per cent year-on-year, and up by 25 per cent over August.

Yeah, but NPD September was 25 percent longer than NPD August...

 

[Asher]

Compared to what?

232k seems okay considering that the PS3 costs $400 and the nearest competition is $200.

They might want to have a price cut if they are in a rush to move out a lot of numbers in the holidays, but if that is not a priority then they can get along fine without a price cut, and wait until they manage to do some more cost reduction changes.

It's really time to drop the price qualifiers. Sony designed the PS3 in such a way that it is significantly more expensive to produce. It doesn't matter what the price is, it is what it is.

You should not be using the PS3's pricepoint as an excuse. You think their goal was to be an "okay selling expensive console"? Their goal was to pick up where they left off with the PS2, which did not and will not happen. It's not "okay", they messed up in a huge way and I only hope the executives at Sony realize it rather than telling themselves something similar to your post here. They can't make that mistake again.

 

[RobertR1]

Compared to what?

232k seems okay considering that the PS3 costs $400 and the nearest competition is $200.

They might want to have a price cut if they are in a rush to move out a lot of numbers in the holidays, but if that is not a priority then they can get along fine without a price cut, and wait until they manage to do some more cost reduction changes.

It's too bad we don't get a break down of the 360 sku's to see which one is really the competition for the PS3. That would give us a better idea of the cost difference in the consumer eyes as we could draw an average.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Don't forget that the PS3 will be selling for a very long time.

That's why I caution those who say the Wii 'won' this generation to hold back on their declarations, because the PS3 (and the 360) are devices that probably have legs 5 years longer than their Nintendo counterpart.

..just something to keep in mind when declaring 'winners' or when clamoring for 'price cuts' on certain consoles.

 

[eastmen]

Don't forget that the PS3 will be selling for a very long time.

That's why I caution those who say the Wii 'won' this generation to hold back on their declarations, because the PS3 (and the 360) are devices that probably have legs 5 years longer than their Nintendo counterpart.

..just something to keep in mind when declaring 'winners' or when clamoring for 'price cuts' on certain consoles.

I think most people feel the war is over when the first next gen system comes out. Because honestly its not really fair to compare numbers if one of them is n longer the main system.

So for example. If the xbox next comes out in 2010 many will feel that if ms was leading sony at that point then they beat sony for hte generation.

The other problem is that after a certian amount of time well we really don't know how many systems are replacements for broken units or units for other rooms in the house. I know many people who bought a ps2 and then a slim ps2 and traded in their old ps2s or they didn't work anymore and threw them out. So how many of those 150m ps2s are actually viable possible sales. the same will go with the wii in 5 years. How many of those original wiis will be viable possible sales

 

[obonicus]

I think most people feel the war is over when the first next gen system comes out. Because honestly its not really fair to compare numbers if one of them is n longer the main system.

So for example. If the xbox next comes out in 2010 many will feel that if ms was leading sony at that point then they beat sony for hte generation.

But that's part of the problem, isn't it? There's no 'beating'. There's companies making money or not making money. Sony beat Nintendo last generation; with how much money Nintendo is making now, does it really matter? Besides fanboys, who's keeping score? When does anyone win? The console war doesn't even exist any more than the Cola Wars did; it's just companies competing with each other and taking a dogmatic "I'm taking xxx's side" really doesn't help the consumer, it's just enabling the corporations to behave like idiots when it comes to us. Finally, there's no 'fair'. There's Sony making money off selling an 8-year-old system. That's why keeping track of lifetime sales matters; of course, Sony's not really doing that much to take advantage of the fact that there are 100 million PS2s out there, though Buzz and Singstar are a good 'start'.

Also who cares what 'many' feel? Since when does their opinion matter? If you actually have an opinion about 'winning' a console generation then you've probably already made up your mind about what console to get.

 

[ninzel]

Don't forget that the PS3 will be selling for a very long time.

That's why I caution those who say the Wii 'won' this generation to hold back on their declarations, because the PS3 (and the 360) are devices that probably have legs 5 years longer than their Nintendo counterpart.

..just something to keep in mind when declaring 'winners' or when clamoring for 'price cuts' on certain consoles.

You're still thinking like a hardcore gamer that probably defines "legs" by how long you are happy with the graphics.Let's face it ,the typical ps3/360 will start to move on when they see screenshots from the next gen games from PS4/720.
The typical Wii owner obviously isn't worried about "legs" in that sense or they wouldn't have bought the Wii in the first place. It's hard to say how long the Wii will last,but it surely can't be directly compared to ps3/360. The Wii is already WAY behind in terms of graphics and yet people are still buying it instead of the others.
They already have alternatives that are affordable now with the 360 being priced as it is and with better graphics and more features,and yet people are still buying the Wii instead.
So what's going to get Wii owners to move on? I don't know, maybe Wii2.

 

[PARANOiA]

The general vibe from a lot of podcasts seems to be that the Wii will be upgraded in a similar way to the DS - so the Wii will be a platform with very long legs, but you probably won't be able to buy the Wii as we see it today in its current format. So maybe the next Wii will be the Wii HD - fully backwards compatible of course - but also forwards compatible, so maybe games will play in HD or SD. That way, the Wii will continue to extend its audience, and occasionally re-invigorate growth slump (as with the DS Lite, DSi) making it a genuine "platform" for a long time to come.

I see Nintendo taking something along these lines moving forward. It's worked so well for them with the DS, and there's no real incentive for them to take the Wii off the market unless people start stop buying the Wii.... and there's no indication that's going to happen. Sales keep going strong.

 

[eastmen]

But that's part of the problem, isn't it? There's no 'beating'. There's companies making money or not making money. Sony beat Nintendo last generation; with how much money Nintendo is making now, does it really matter? Besides fanboys, who's keeping score? When does anyone win? The console war doesn't even exist any more than the Cola Wars did; it's just companies competing with each other and taking a dogmatic "I'm taking xxx's side" really doesn't help the consumer, it's just enabling the corporations to behave like idiots when it comes to us. Finally, there's no 'fair'. There's Sony making money off selling an 8-year-old system. That's why keeping track of lifetime sales matters; of course, Sony's not really doing that much to take advantage of the fact that there are 100 million PS2s out there, though Buzz and Singstar are a good 'start'.

Also who cares what 'many' feel? Since when does their opinion matter? If you actually have an opinion about 'winning' a console generation then you've probably already made up your mind about what console to get.

Well sony is billions in the hole with the ps3 already and while some say they are already sunk costs , its still a way to keep score. MS lost billions on the xbox. Sony has so far lost billions on the ps3. Will they ever be able to make back that investment with the ps3 or will they go deeper into the hole ?

Are there really a 100m ps2s out there though. That is hte question. If sony kept selling the ps2 for another 10 years would there be 300m ps2s out there to sell too ? How many of them will be sitting at gamestop and selling for $20 bucks used.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It's really time to drop the price qualifiers. Sony designed the PS3 in such a way that it is significantly more expensive to produce. It doesn't matter what the price is, it is what it is.

Im sorry but this part makes no sense to me.

You should not be using the PS3's pricepoint as an excuse..

Im not using the price as an excuse, im looking at the price and im looking at the numbers and i see resonably good sales numbers.

Its not like PS3 sales dropped because of the X360 price drop, they are right inline with the other months. I

You think their goal was to be an "okay selling expensive console"? Their goal was to pick up where they left off with the PS2, which did not and will not happen.

I think you have some kind of problem against Sony and wants to get them. It certainly seems so looking at this post. Read the last part of the last sentence: "which did not and will not happend".


While Sony's goal or vision with the PS3 might have been market dominance like with the PS2, its pretty clear that this goal has been revised due to how the market has changed. I mean, you said it yourself, it will not happend.

Thus the goals have changed. Yes the originial plan didn't work. You want to spend your time whining about that, fine. I for one like to focus on the present, and im certain that sony has revized their current goals to fit the new market conditions. One of these goals is certainly making a profit.

Cutting price in their best selling quarter may not really be all that interesting from a economic standpoint.

It's not "okay", they messed up in a huge way and I only hope the executives at Sony realize it rather than telling themselves something similar to your post here. They can't make that mistake again.

Fine. You think that selling 232k (pretty much the same as august on a weekly basis) in september, the same month where the nearest competition got a big price cut, is "not okay", i think its fine. Its better than i expected.