NPD February 2009

[mrcorbo]

I disagree though that the PS brand has been knocked for six, holds little value, and all Sony can do now is mop up a few sales up from the outskirts of the market, in contrast to people like neliz who talk as though Sony have killed the PS brand. PS3 doesn't need a complete makeover and slurry of varied titles to kickstart a second wind. A price drop is, IMHO, all that's needed to reinvigorate PS3 sales and over the next 5 years, it could do very well considering its beginnings.

I don't think I'd argue with any of the above. You make it kinda tough at the end with "very well" being subjective and "considering its beginnings" being a pretty effective qualifier.

Clearly the rumors of PS3's death are greatly exaggerated. It will become profitable soon (if it hasn't already) and they have the potential to learn a lot from both their failures and their successes this gen that will serve them well in the next round.

I still don't think the PS3 will be able to have its profits redeem the losses it has generated so far by the time the next round starts, though. They just have too big of a hole to climb out of.

 

[vanquish]

I still don't think the PS3 will be able to have its profits redeem the losses it has generated so far by the time the next round starts, though. They just have too big of a hole to climb out of.

The only hole the PS3 is in, is price.

MS on the other hand has been burned by a lot of things; RROD, disc scratching, pay subscription to online gaming, ridiculously high cost of accessories etc.

So simply being expensive compared to the competition, is hardly a disadvantage.

 

[BadTB25]

That's what I mean, they would have bought a PS3 if it was cheaper, rather than a 360.

The fact remains that at this point in time, 360 sales are largely price-driven, as all the people who wanted to buy a 360, for the sake of it, have long since bought theirs.

I'd have to disagree.

The perception of the PS3 has also been hurt by inferior ports this generation as well as the "harder to program" mantra.

I enjoy my PS3, but if price was the only discriminating factor, I still would not have owned one.

The factor that made me jump in at the time I did, was the rumor (which turned out to be true), that future PS3s would be losing BC.

Also, don't underestimate word of mouth and the desire to play what your friends are playing. Some of the Halo DLC that have been purchased by members on this board has been influenced by our Friday game nights for example.

On top of that, Netflix exclusivity and NXE are both things that are driving demand on top of the lower price IMO.

 

[vanquish]

I'd have to disagree.

The perception of the PS3 has also been hurt by inferior ports this generation as well as the "harder to program" mantra.

.

The inferior ports/ harder to program business has been skillfully managed by Sony, and rather than a disadvantage, is actually something like 'proof' of the power of the PS3, that all these 'second rate' devs have problems tapping into. Further supported by the technical achievements of first party titles.

Even grandmaster's Eurogamer MP comparision articles, are written with the implicit view that the PS3 port should look better, and that devs aren't trying hard enough when they don't.

 

[mrcorbo]

That's what I mean, they would have bought a PS3 if it was cheaper, rather than a 360.

The fact remains that at this point in time, 360 sales are largely price-driven, as all the people who wanted to buy a 360, for the sake of it, have long since bought theirs.

The issue is that there is a difference between the PS3 being regarded by consumers as too expensive in absolute terms (meaning it just isn't an option, people can't afford the price) and too expensive compared to the 360 (meaning that people could buy a PS3 but think the 360 is a better value). If it's the latter than a price drop could make a huge difference. If it's the former than there's the problem that the 360 is always going to be able to be cheaper than the PS3. It was designed that way.

 

[mrcorbo]

The only hole the PS3 is in, is price.

MS on the other hand has been burned by a lot of things; RROD, disc scratching, pay subscription to online gaming, ridiculously high cost of accessories etc.

So simply being expensive compared to the competition, is hardly a disadvantage.

You misunderstand me. The hole I'm referring to is the financial one that's Sony's game division is in due to the cost of launching the PS3. A hole big enough to swallow all the profits made from both the PS1 and PS2. The PS3 is not going to make that money back.

 

[vanquish]

You misunderstand me. The hole I'm referring to is the financial one that's Sony's game division is in due to the cost of launching the PS3. A hole big enough to swallow all the profits made from both the PS1 and PS2. The PS3 is not going to make that money back.

Oh, ok. But aren't they making profit on the PS3 hardware sales (or breaking even)? PS3's aren't exactly cheap.

And PSP's and previously PS2's are selling like hotcakes, which I'm sure is buoying up Sony Computer Entertainment's finances.

The PS2 market is huge, games are still being made & sold, unlike MS which lost all revenue from the Xbox, when they stopped supporting it in 2005.

 

[obonicus]

I'd have to disagree.

The perception of the PS3 has also been hurt by inferior ports this generation as well as the "harder to program" mantra.

I'm not so sure. Most people don't understand either of those; spend some time on GAF and you'll see what is taken for truth here as B3D is seen as just more fodder for console wars. Grandmaster's face-offs are seen as horribly biased from the PS3 side, as is all of Eurogamer. They hold up games like KZ2 or Uncharted as counterexamples, though they're not really.

And even if they did realize that some ports are worse here or there, I personally suspect that, barring the truly egregious 'early EA' ports (i.e. both ports are perfectly playable), people hold controller preference above 'port quality'.

 

[obonicus]

Oh, ok. But aren't they making profit on the PS3 hardware sales (or breaking even)? PS3's aren't exactly cheap.

No one knows. Some people here even think that MS is making money on $199 arcades, while others take it as a loss-leader.

 

[BadTB25]

I'm not so sure. Most people don't understand either of those; spend some time on GAF and you'll see what is taken for truth here as B3D is seen as just more fodder for console wars. Grandmaster's face-offs are seen as horribly biased from the PS3 side, as is all of Eurogamer. They hold up games like KZ2 or Uncharted as counterexamples, though they're not really.

And even if they did realize that some ports are worse here or there, I personally suspect that, barring the truly egregious 'early EA' ports (i.e. both ports are perfectly playable), people hold controller preference above 'port quality'.

Well I agree that the common uninformed user may not know this, but the web nowadays, there may be less of them than there used to be.

The problem with the PS3 compared to the X360 is that the console is cheaper and the ports are better. You'd expect that if you are paying more that you at least get the superior port or multiplatform titles.

Of course, this is not the only reason why the 360 continues to lead the PS3. Despite what I wrote, price is probably the biggest factor.

What I'm saying is that it is more than just price. Take into account better ports, Netflix, a more stable and consistent service, NXE, etc.

 

[obonicus]

What I'm saying is that it is more than just price. Take into account better ports, Netflix, a more stable and consistent service, NXE, etc.

Sure, I buy that. I don't think port quality is a huge factor, but for the more informed crowd it'll mean something. But I think that with KZ2 and Uncharted, people still think that the PS3 is leaps and bounds better than the 360, in terms of processing/graphical power.

 

[BadTB25]

I agree, those 2 games look really good and may in fact shift the perception that the PS3 is more powerful than the X360.

Unfortunately, the last generation it wasn't the most powerful system that sold the most, but the ones with the right mix of games.

This generation is so complex that it may be a mix of games, services, price, perceived value, etc.

I'm rooting for PS3 and X360 to finish somewhat close to even (maybe with the 360 holding a slight lead). I believe that would force both companies to try even harder next gen. Sony in my opinion could use a little bit of humble pie and MS needs a little victory to stay in it and not abandon the console market.

I really do not want it to go the Wii route in using older gen tech. I want cutting edge with awesome graphics, sound, physics, interactivity, etc.

 

[vanquish]

I agree, those 2 games look really good and may in fact shift the perception that the PS3 is more powerful than the X360.

Unfortunately, the last generation it wasn't the most powerful system that sold the most, but the ones with the right mix of games.

This generation is so complex that it may be a mix of games, services, price, perceived value, etc.

I'm rooting for PS3 and X360 to finish somewhat close to even (maybe with the 360 holding a slight lead). I believe that would force both companies to try even harder next gen. Sony in my opinion could use a little bit of humble pie and MS needs a little victory to stay in it and not abandon the console market.

I really do not want it to go the Wii route in using older gen tech. I want cutting edge with awesome graphics, sound, physics, interactivity, etc.

Yes, I do not want the Wii to win, it will be the worst outcome for core gamers, as MS and Sony will go after the casual pie next-gen and the previous twenty + years of gaming tradition will likely be eschewed (or diminished) as a result.

However a Wii victory, looks inevitable. As some think though, it's possible that the Wii exists in a different market and so does not directly compete with the 360/PS3.

 

[obonicus]

Keep in mind there's not really a 'war', or even a race going on. It's about what publishers feel comfortable developing games for. Will support shift to the Wii next-gen? We have to watch upscale games performance this-gen to maybe get a clue. Nintendo's apparently never been too friendly with third parties, so I suspect they're also rooting for the PS3 and 360 to push them forward.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I don't really think "core" gamers needs to worry. There will always be a "core" gamer market.

For example...

If we switched things around and had 2 vendors making Wii type consoles with 1 vendor making "core" gamer type consoles...

You'd have 2 vendors instead of 1 now fighting for the Wii market.

You'd have 1 vendor with the "core" gamer market all to themselves.

Suddenly that 1 vendor with the "core" market and its associated (currently) larger attach rate is going to be raking in the money.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I agree, those 2 games look really good and may in fact shift the perception that the PS3 is more powerful than the X360.

Unfortunately, the last generation it wasn't the most powerful system that sold the most, but the ones with the right mix of games.

This generation is so complex that it may be a mix of games, services, price, perceived value, etc.

I'm rooting for PS3 and X360 to finish somewhat close to even (maybe with the 360 holding a slight lead). I believe that would force both companies to try even harder next gen. Sony in my opinion could use a little bit of humble pie and MS needs a little victory to stay in it and not abandon the console market.

I really do not want it to go the Wii route in using older gen tech. I want cutting edge with awesome graphics, sound, physics, interactivity, etc.

I'm not sure Graphical Prowess is going to shift many units one way or another, it's just a bragging rights thing.

Look at PS2 versus Xbox for example. The Xbox had far superior graphics quality compared to the PS2 but in the end it really didn't matter.

Price, market penetration, momentum, availability of games, and possibly exclusives will win this round.

Currently X360 is leading in price, availability of games, and exclusives.

Market penetration and momentum are owned by X360 in the US, but it's a lot closer in the EU and Asia.

PS3 was leading (by most accounts) by a large margin in momentum in the EU but the recent price drops on X360 appears to have reversed much of that.

And that leads me to what I currently see...

MS is still willling to try to win marketshare and thus take a chance that it'll recoup that through increased sales of games and accessories. Even willing to take a loss of that chance... As witnessed by some targetted price cuts throughout Europe. In the US, they hold a commanding lead and appear to be content with how things are currently.

Sony on the other hand appears to currently be more focused on stopping the massive money losses they are suffering. They haven't really done much in the past few months to try to stimulate sales other than cross their fingers and hope that their exclusives would boost sales. As such MS is gaining ground in the EU and extending their lead in the US.

I'm really...REALLY interested to see how March turns out and whether KZ2 was able to boost sales of PS3 in any significant manner.

Regards,
SB

 

[Zassk]

Weren´t it that the last round of 360 Pricedrops brought the 360 sales back to life? I don´t seem to recall that the PS3 stopped selling.

The PS3 went into negative year-over-year territory (and stayed there) when the 360 got a price cut. Does correlation imply causation?

Besides the obvious point that the PS3 is expensive, how come that only USA can´t afford the PS3?

In the timeframe that we're discussing, the PS3 has been struggling in 3rd place everywhere except Japan. The evidence suggests that the PS3 is hindered by price outside the USA as it is inside the USA.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Yes, I do not want the Wii to win, it will be the worst outcome for core gamers, as MS and Sony will go after the casual pie next-gen and the previous twenty + years of gaming tradition will likely be eschewed (or diminished) as a result.

Ditching the old gaming traditions happened with the introduction of the CD drive, and long, boring, easily beatable games with high production values became the norm.. You mean the last ten years of gaming traditions, not the last twenty.

If we switched things around and had 2 vendors making Wii type consoles with 1 vendor making "core" gamer type consoles...
You'd have 2 vendors instead of 1 now fighting for the Wii market.
You'd have 1 vendor with the "core" gamer market all to themselves.
Suddenly that 1 vendor with the "core" market and its associated (currently) larger attach rate is going to be raking in the money.

Unless next gen's "Wii," whatever it is, is more appealing to the core gamer. There are lots of ways that could happen without going for yet another massive upgrade in graphics.

 

[-tkf-]

In the timeframe that we're discussing, the PS3 has been struggling in 3rd place everywhere except Japan. The evidence suggests that the PS3 is hindered by price outside the USA as it is inside the USA.

It was launched later in Europe and it pretty much on par with the 360. Compare that to the USA where it´s at 50%

 

[Zassk]

It was launched later in Europe and it pretty much on par with the 360. Compare that to the USA where it´s at 50%

Yes, but it's lost ground in Europe since the 360's price drop. That says that price is the PS3's problem in that region as well.