But it has already outsold XB360 some months earlier 
NPD August 2008
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
But it has already outsold XB360 some months earlier
yeah with like 20k units or whatever
360 will probably make that up and then some in september npd
I still don't get your point. Has PS3 outsold XB360 before in NA? Yes. Did it outsell XB360 by a huge margin (ignoring MGS4 boost)? No. Was it ever expected to, being more expensive and all? Were you thinking PS3 would be outselling XB360 2:1 or something prior to XB360 hitting the $200 price? I don't see why PS3 underselling XB360 by like 10k units or whatever is anything particularly poor nor out of current expectations; I certainly had no expectation PS3 would outsell XB360 by a significant margin last month.
I actually think the software library point is irrelevant for the most part, at least when we discuss PS360 sales. Vast majority of big games is available on both platforms and usually someone who buys an HD console buys it to play new games that come out in general rather than with one or two games in mind. Sometimes a particular game might swing a purchaser towards one of these consoles, but overall these few exclusive games are a bonus rather the main selling point.
I believe that price points, brand awareness , hardware and software features are more important factors during process of choosing between the two consoles than exclusive games themselves.
jandlecack
Banned
No they aren't. They had a one year headstart with no competition, their biggest game out for them at a time when main competition (Sony) was at their weakest, and didn't capitalize on anything enough to make a difference. Now they are losing ground fast in Europe, never gained any in Japan (only for one to two weeks), and maintain in the US of A - against a console that has gone through so much PR bullshit, so much negative criticism, so much bad reputation and that had BluRay playback as the major selling point for a whole year or a bit more - in a time where HD-DVD was still alive and mainstream audience didn't care for either.
That, my friend, is failing in my book.
eh numbers are pretty much in line with the first xbox
online users have increased and developer support (especially from japan) is better
but saleswise they should be doing better considering they had a full year on their own and is much cheaper than the competition
They gained a 5.5 million console lead in the first year, increased it to 7 and now its back down to 5.3 million. So they have maintained a rough parity against a console whose previous versions have sold over 200 million worldwide and are on track to beating the previous version of their console a year faster than it managed to reach those sales numbers whilst maintaining a higher price and taking into account the very slow first year of release. I would call that a success.
With the pricecuts they may just have it in them to maintain that parity for at least another 6 months or even extend the lead a little.
They held back the runaway-success reigning champion of two generation's to a 'draw'.
'Fast' is subjective. It's not like PS2 versus XB.
PS3's doing pretty lousy numbers per week too though, and MS have improved on where XB was.
I disagree. I wouldn't call XB360 a great success, but it's no failure either by most measures. It's sold better than plenty of historical consoles, has attracted widespread developer support, has kept in the running with the competition, and so forth. Unless you count someone who makes it to the finals of the Olympic 400m and runs a personal best to end 7th in the middle of the pack a failure, XB360's performance can't be deemed so lowly.
There's a reason why SONY hardly has anymore exclusives fro their dominart PS2 years. I wonder why all of those 3rd parties jumped on the X360 wagon if MS wasn't doing so well. Also attache rates are good for MS this generation too.
Its not the cheapest console by far, specially not when a cheaper priced Playstation 2 is staring you in the pocket of the casual gamer.
Personally I believe this "magical $199 mark" is a myth, we all know that SEGA's Dreamcast launched at $199 from the start and SEGA did not have consoles becoming useless due to chips melting the motherboard.
I believe that we were talking about "casuals" here not magic markers, casuals generally don't really care about how much it costs but what appeals to them.
Also when I mentioned Gears 2, it was because we all know that its going to sell existing owners, generate hype and sell more consoles and then die off like all other games, at least with Gears being a sequel of something recently experienced in the last two years, its expected.
One of the things that concerns me is that with the Wii, the casual gamer only needs to buy the console, plus Wii fit, plus name any peripheral plus game and all they do is plug it all in and play.
What Microsoft seems to be asking casuals is, at least from my perspective "buy the console, buy the game, buy peripheral but you are gonna need to buy XBox Live service experience what we are talking about"
It almost seems too much to ask of a casual consumer so ease of play may be a big factor because if internet service is down the Wii owner does not really give a **** expletive.
MS is definitely doing well this generation. Competition is fierce, but the market is still growing. It it not unthinkable that the 360 will do quite a bit better than the original xbox, and still end in 3rd place worldwide, and maybe even in the U.S. But right now the 360 has a decent shot at ending 2nd in the U.S.
However, none of them can be sure of their position year-to-year, which is very interesting, and makes this generation a rather exciting one.
However, none of them can be sure of their position year-to-year, which is very interesting, and makes this generation a rather exciting one.
Your book doesn't matter. Console manufacturing is a business not a spectator sport and most businesses don't have #1 or bust strategy for entering and maintaining a long term presence in their respective market of entrance. Nintendo nor Sony's experience of entering the market should be looked at as the optimal strategy for any other company trying to enter the gaming market and maintain a long term presence.
Has the 360 performed appreciably better than the original Xbox?
Yes and by alot. Comparing your present performance against your past performance is the standard metric of which most companies and other use to judge a product. The 360 has already surpassed the original Xbox in Japan and is less than a million units from surpassing the original xbox in the PAL market in total sales. By the end of this holiday season MS will have put more 360s in the market than they have xbox1s with a cushion of 2 to 3 years before a new generation of consoles show up.
All this has happen with a pricing strategy that is totally opposite of what MS employed last generation. The xbox1 couldn't sustained $299.00 price tag for no more than its first 2 months on the market, while the 360 Pro, MS's most popular sku took almost 30 months or 2 1/2 year to even reach that price.
Given that the 360 is competing against the gaming world versions of Ursain Bolt and Carl Lewis (just past his prime), the 360's numbers are very respectable. And for whatever PR bull, criticism and bad reputation bestowed on Sony, they never had to deal with the term "broken" and "unreliable" which from a marketing standpoint is a lot harder to deal with the phrases "too expensive" and "lackluster library".
I could use your same logic and apply it to Sony and produce the same argument. MS has a chance of garnering 25-30% of the market this generation, a rather respectable increase over their marketshare last generation which was ~15%. Most companies try to grow their marketshare gradually and not depend on being the next Wii or Ipod.
The PS1 had almost a year headstart and didn't start off with a bang. The N64 almost erased Sony's lead within the a matter of a few months. However, Sony got lucky because it had to deal with a competitor whos arrogance and poor relationship with third party devs allowed Sony to maximize its entrance in the market and the PS1 took off. The 360's head start didn't produce equal success of the PS1 but the 360 had to deal with not just with an arrogant Sony and its high priced console but with a reinvigorated Nintendo with a product that resonated with the gaming market with the zealous of an Ipod.
Last edited by a moderator:
jandlecack
Banned
MOD : If you've got nothing to say, don't say anything. You presented an opinion, people expressed their disagreement, and the only valid followup is a rebutal on your part, or just bow out of the conversation. Silly little one-liners aren't welcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
Who is "we?" I'm talking about users, because users play games, which is extremely relevant to talking about demographics. The people who use a game console determine software sales, and moreover, a product that appeals to families is a different animal than something that appeals solely to young men. To look at a similar example, in the case of TV, the people who watch a station are the people that advertisers target, not merely the people who own the TV or subscribe to the cable service. If that were the case, there would be no television marketing targeted at kids!
No, we're talking about NPD. NPD is sales. Talking about users just clouds the discussion. Has the market changed? According to NPD, not that much. To them 19% of PS2 owners own a Wii. That means that 70% of the Wii userbase owned a PS2. The other 30% might be a new market; they might be GC owners or even Xbox owners, too. Going 'yeah, there's a new market because there are more female users' when we're wondering about SALES is unhelpful, to say the least.
Is 45% of the Wii playerbase being female a lot? A little? Again, how did the PS2 compare?
Right. I don't disagree with what you're saying. My problem is with the notion of a magical price-point. There isn't one. What there was was a price-cut. The way people are talking, it's like $199 is the key that'll open the magical gate to Sales, because the Seers have spoken of it, and because in the Past, that's how it's always worked. It's just a premise that leads to a lot of bad predictions; the value of the 360 has improved, doubtless, and maybe now it'll start to see greater adoption, but it's not Foretold that the 360 will catapult ahead -- it's likely, but certainly not inevitable.
It comes down to value, as you said. Just as the Wii, which is above $199, seems to be a good enough value so as to sell a ridiculous number of consoles.
I agree 100%,
another myth was the first to sell 10million 'wins' the console race
it aint gonna happen this time. In fact its looking increasingly like the first to pass 10million will sell the least.
Price is not the most important factor its 'desirability' Ive predicted once the wii drops to $199 (once it will do I assume when its current demand @$250 decreases ) it will NOT sell more consoles at that price than it has at $250.
you know whats gonna happen with the next generation of consoles of course we're gonna have speaks like
'the first to sell 20million wins'
'the magical $250 price barrier'
blah blah
The PS3 is not an upgraded PS2. With consoles, the success of the previous product does not guarantee in any way the success of the current product, as each machine essentially has its own library and thus must stand alone. See Atari 7800, Sega Saturn, and Nintendo 64 for details. The PS3 has had a lot of problems making it reminiscent of the aforementioned consoles rather than the PS2, meaning that Xbox 360 had the prime market opportunity to do what NES or PS1 did, respectively.
Rancidlunchmeat brought up demographics, which is why I responded with information about demographics. If you're not going to follow the conversation, don't butt in.obonicus said:
Did you know that NPD also tracks software sales? The unprecedented success of Carnival Games, the popularity of Wii Fit, and the demographics of the people who play (and therefore result in sales of) Wii games are quite relevant to publishers, which is why 3rd-party Wii games go for mass appeal based on the user demographic. It's why the Wii shelf is full of puzzle games and mini-games. Demographics matter. I can't think of a single industry that doesn't follow its user demographics, but instead blindly follows raw sales numbers.
BTW, comparing performance to a previous product is not really any "standard metric." The standard metric is your sales target, which is especially important when your previous product totally failed to meet its initial long-term sales targets (which GC and Xbox both did).
