Sony charging editors for PSN?

[ShadowRunner]

While it does mean little as an average gamer it is still a valid subject of discussion and looking at what is happening in the market can be quite interesting imo. Problem is that instead of market/trend analysis and interesting points on the matter you get thinly vailed comments and remarks born only from bias and fanboyism.

 

[Nesh]

Sales are quite important to any hardware platform if you are an end user. If sales suddenly takes a dive and your platform of choice is discontinued, then you've lost out on your investment in that console. You'll still be able to play your existing games but you won't see future ones.

The Dreamcast was also an excellant machine with (at the time) some very excellent games (Shen Mue for example) yet it went the way of the dodo due to lack to of sales. I as an end user of the console was impacted by this greatly.

So yes, sales or the lack thereof, are very important to me as an end user of either console. As it can also indicate the likelyhood of quality content and the quanty of content to be developed for it.

Regards,
SB

Having low sales and having comparatively lower sales than competition can be two different things.

In the case of the PS3 the sales are healthy. Just not the highest

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Having low sales and having comparatively lower sales than competition can be two different things.

In the case of the PS3 the sales are healthy. Just not the highest

Yes but it is still a good thing to track as an end user, IMO, as it may indicate how dev dollars will be allocated... And that will influence quality of cross platform titles as well as likelihood of more or less exclusives...

Of course, the willingness of the corporation to dump money on devs to attract exclusives is also a big deal (ala original Xbox).

But overall, sales numbers can give an indication of whether you have more or less effort put into cross platform games. As well as an indication of whether you'll get more or less exclusives and whether you'll have more former exclusives suddenly deciding that multiplatform is a better idea. Final Fantasy series for example.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes but it is still a good thing to track as an end user, IMO...
But overall, sales numbers can give an indication of whether you have more or less effort put into cross platform games. As well as an indication of whether you'll get more or less exclusives and whether you'll have more former exclusives suddenly deciding that multiplatform is a better idea. Final Fantasy series for example.

As an end user, you've already bought your console and will have to live with the choice. The only reason I can see for caring about sales numbers is if you think you should sell your console and buy the alternative. If you're happy with your choice and the market is healthy enough to get the games you want, even if the cross-platform ones aren't as nice as the on the other platform(s) you have a working games machine. What benefit does watching sales trends have then? You could completely ignore hardware sales and just look at software availability if you want to switch platforms. Once the games you want start coming out on the other boxes, you can get them. Whether that's because the Yen is strong, the parent company has slashed prices, a marketting blitz has promoted the other console or whatever, no decision needs be taken until publishers stop releasing games on your platform.

IMO the only useful info for gamers from sales (beyond curiosity) is for people who haven't bought a console who are trying to predict the long-term investment of buying one system versus the other.

 

[tha_con]

I agree with Shifty 100%. This is why I don't think Sales talk is necessarily important, other than to simply fulfill curiosity.

We know for a fact that the PS3 is not going the way of the Dreamcast, as was somewhat alluded to earlier. In fact, the Dreamcast really wasn't dead in it's own right, it had plenty of help from the Sega CD, 32x, Sega Saturn, etc. Failed ideas ultimately helpd the Dreamcast die, not just the PS2.

Also, in reference to multiplatform games, few of the ports that hit the PS3 are so bad that one would find it absolutely unplayable. In addition to that, even when PS3 sales were at their lowest, we still saw multiplatform games that were coming out on both systems. It simply makes no sense to avoid a platform all together, especially when the install base is as large as it is.

Thus, I think this late in the game, sales are completely irrelevant to the majoirty of us as users, especially when some of us are owners of multiple platforms.

Though, I still think it's fine for people to discuss them, etc, I just think it's foolish to somehow try to extrapolate that data and come to conclusions regarding software development, etc. The base is too large for any month to month sales to be a large factor.

 

[Asher]

It's not month-to-month sales that are a factor. It's the longer term trends. While the PS3 sales can be called "healthy" by some, the fact is they're massively disappointing (think back to virtually everyone's expectations from several years ago). And low sales will translate into lowered development priority -- whether this means fewer ports or shoddier ports, that depends on the publisher and the game. But sales do matter to the platform in general, and are important to be aware of to spot the longer term trends.

 

[-tkf-]

But sales do matter to the platform in general, and are important to be aware of to spot the longer term trends.

And one thing we learned is the "next" round has aparently nothing to do with the last round. Cube bottom, PS2 on top, Wii on top, PS3 on bottom.

 

[tha_con]

It's not month-to-month sales that are a factor. It's the longer term trends. While the PS3 sales can be called "healthy" by some, the fact is they're massively disappointing (think back to virtually everyone's expectations from several years ago). And low sales will translate into lowered development priority -- whether this means fewer ports or shoddier ports, that depends on the publisher and the game. But sales do matter to the platform in general, and are important to be aware of to spot the longer term trends.

Well, I'll politely agree to disagree. Depiste PS3 sales, ports have still been playable (very few of them are "shoddy") and rarely are there no ports in sight.

I'd say the biggest factor this generation in reference to ports and multiplatform titles has not been sales, rather, it's been Microsofts "ambition" to go after these 3rd party developers / publishers and cut deals to help with marketing, development, publishing, etc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And low sales will translate into lowered development priority -- whether this means fewer ports or shoddier ports, that depends on the publisher and the game. But sales do matter to the platform in general, and are important to be aware of to spot the longer term trends.

As an owner of PS3, what difference does it make? The ports will be what they will be. Unless you look at the trends and decide 'ports are only going to get worse, I'm gonna get XB360 instead,' it's of no consequence. The quality of ports is one factor for getting a console. If cross-platform titles is all that matters, I'd say the price differential alone would make XB360 the better choice! Otherwise the exclusives of PS3 are the principle reason to buy it, and lack of high priority with cross-platform titles makes no odds t those.

Or putting it another way, how much bearing does the cross-platform situation have on you? Let's say you predict sales will tail off and cross-platform priority will remain low, with PS3 getting inferior ports. What is your (and every other PS3 owners) response going to be to that?

 

[habbe]

Some numbers on XBL.

http://mommysbest.blogspot.com/2009/03/big-fish-in-shallow-pond.html

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Or putting it another way, how much bearing does the cross-platform situation have on you? Let's say you predict sales will tail off and cross-platform priority will remain low, with PS3 getting inferior ports. What is your (and every other PS3 owners) response going to be to that?

If that were the case then I'd either try to sell the PS3 or give it to a relative. Which would then have a bit of a domino effect making things worse. But by that point I wouldn't care since I've divested myself of it.

The same as I would have done for the original Xbox except that homebrew on that actually made the machine a pretty darn good media extender for the TV.

BTW - this isn't to say that the PS3 is at that point or will even get to that point. But if it continues to lag behind it'll be interesting to see what does happen. Unlike in the past, Sony's pockets aren't as deep as they have been.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And one thing we learned is the "next" round has aparently nothing to do with the last round. Cube bottom, PS2 on top, Wii on top, PS3 on bottom.

Not really. The past round can and does have an effect on current/next rounds.

Despite launching later than the DC, with less games than the DC and nothing graphically more impressive than the DC, the PS2 still managed to overwhelm it and absolutely make it a non-factor withing a year of launch.

Due mainly to strong sales from fans of the original PS1 as well as developer's staying faithul to the playstation brand and developing exclusive for the console.

But all the goodwill built up in the past certainly won't do you much good if you totally flub things.

And developer "faithfulness" won't continue if your console is continually delayed, overpriced, and doesn't sell well.

As such, IMO, PS3 is still benefitting hugely from past success. There's nothing you can pull up that would prove or disprove what I'm about to say. So it's an opinion and only that. But had the PS1 and more importantly the PS2 not been as successful as they were, it's quite possible the PS3 would be so completely out of the game now, that it would be facing cancellation similar to the Dreamcast. Or at best, barely limping along ala 3DO.

That is NOT to say the PS3 is a bad machine. Just like the DC wasn't a bad machine.

Regards,
SB

 

[tha_con]

My question is, even if PS3 were selling like hot cakes, do you *really* think that the PS3 would be lead SKU for all products and the quality of ports would somehow improve? I certainly do not think so.

Nor do I think developers would be less inclined to develop on the 360, because Microsoft would *still* be actively seeking out publishing deals, marketing deals, etc ,to get the most out of 3rd parties.

So, we're back to square one. As a consumer, sales are nearly irrelevant to each and every one of us, unless counting numbers happens to be a hobby of yours (or you happen to be scouting jobs as an analyst).

 

[BadTB25]

My question is, even if PS3 were selling like hot cakes, do you *really* think that the PS3 would be lead SKU for all products and the quality of ports would somehow improve? I certainly do not think so.

Nor do I think developers would be less inclined to develop on the 360, because Microsoft would *still* be actively seeking out publishing deals, marketing deals, etc ,to get the most out of 3rd parties.

So, we're back to square one. As a consumer, sales are nearly irrelevant to each and every one of us, unless counting numbers happens to be a hobby of yours (or you happen to be scouting jobs as an analyst).

Actually, I disagree.

I think if sales were a lot better for the PS3 relative to the X360, you'd see more companies leading on the PS3 and porting to the X360. This was true last gen and is turning out to be true this gen as well. The PS2 was relatively harder to program than the Xbox, but most developers lead on the PS2 and had inferior or equal ports on the Xbox...sounds familiar doesn't it?

You're right in that MS would still be actively seeking out publishing and marketing deals, but that is no different than any of the console manufacturers.

There is a point where because of a console sales, it reaches a kind of mass hysteria. We witness a glimpse of this every time NPD is released and not just from the hardcore.

I hardly consider the posters at Neogaf the hardcore, yet every time that NPD releases, the servers there are overwhelmed. Consumers are interested in console sales, whether it for e-penis, ego or just plain brand loyalty, they are interested.

Sony needs PS3 to sale well just like MS needs the X360 to sell well. I hope both do. Without either of them, who is going to push the tech next gen...Nintendo?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sony needs PS3 to sale well just like MS needs the X360 to sell well. I hope both do. Without either of them, who is going to push the tech next gen...Nintendo?

I couldn't agree with this more. As we wouldn't have as many quirky non-game games without the Playstation around. ICO and the Katamari games for example. Although I suppose if PS brand wasn't around they might get developed on Wii instead.

Likewise, without the Xbox and X360 FPS games might not have gotten the push they've seen on consoles.

So, I'm definitely rooting for all three console makers to do well enough to survive/prosper and make it to the next round, and the round after that, etc...

Regards,
SB

 

[tha_con]

Actually, I disagree.

I think if sales were a lot better for the PS3 relative to the X360, you'd see more companies leading on the PS3 and porting to the X360. This was true last gen and is turning out to be true this gen as well. The PS2 was relatively harder to program than the Xbox, but most developers lead on the PS2 and had inferior or equal ports on the Xbox...sounds familiar doesn't it?

You're right in that MS would still be actively seeking out publishing and marketing deals, but that is no different than any of the console manufacturers.

There is a point where because of a console sales, it reaches a kind of mass hysteria. We witness a glimpse of this every time NPD is released and not just from the hardcore.

I hardly consider the posters at Neogaf the hardcore, yet every time that NPD releases, the servers there are overwhelmed. Consumers are interested in console sales, whether it for e-penis, ego or just plain brand loyalty, they are interested.

Sony needs PS3 to sale well just like MS needs the X360 to sell well. I hope both do. Without either of them, who is going to push the tech next gen...Nintendo?

Actually, a lot of games were better on the Xbox, IIRC. I can name quite a few big EA and Activision titles that ran considerably better on the Xbox.

In fact, most of what ran "poorly" on Xbox were games that were ported much later in their life (like MGS2, Silent Hill titles, etc).

Even GTA titles looked and ran a bit better on the Xbox.

It's apples to oranges, the Xbox sold far fewer units, yet still saw many many more superior ports, compared to the situation we are in now with the 360 / PS3.

And you're wrong, Consumers aren't interested in Sales. Forum goers, who may also happen to be consumers, are. I'd be willing to wager more than 60% of the customers who walk into a Gamestop, Wal-Mart, or best buy have no idea what "NPD" is.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

And you're wrong, Consumers aren't interested in Sales. Forum goers, who may also happen to be consumers, are. I'd be willing to wager more than 60% of the customers who walk into a Gamestop, Wal-Mart, or best buy have no idea what "NPD" is.

Quite true, while consumers aren't interested in sales directly they ARE interested in the by product of sales even though they aren't aware of it.

More sales = more games = more chance of a stand out game = more sales = more games = more chance of a stand out game, etc. It's a bit of a vicious cycle.

Once PS2 had a substantial lead in sales there was absolutely nothing MS could do for the Xbox that would even remotely change anything. PS2 just snowballed and all MS could do was hope there were enough people looking for something different that the losses for Xbox wouldn't be too large. If MS wasn't willing to suffer staggering losses, they would have gone the way of the Sega Dreamcast. And that certainly would have impacted consumers this generation (no X360).

I don't think we're at that point this generation just yet. It could be argued that Wii has reached snowball status, but they aren't really targetting or attracting the same market. In other words sales of Wii are independant of PS3/X360. Or to put it yet another way, if Wii didn't exist I don't think you'd see all that many more PS3/X360 sales. Likewise, it appears most devs are still trying to figure out how to tap into that huge user base.

And X360 while having a commanding lead in the US, doesn't enjoy the same lead over PS3 in other territories.

So for this generation sales indeed may not end up mattering, unless developement dollars follow US market numbers. In which case the X360 has a chance of snowballing to a degree, but nothing like the PS2 over Xbox.

Either way it's not something we'd see for another 1-2 years. As developement time and dollars have already been allocated years in advance for anything coming out soon.

Regards,
SB

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

My question is, even if PS3 were selling like hot cakes, do you *really* think that the PS3 would be lead SKU for all products and the quality of ports would somehow improve? I certainly do not think so.

Nor do I think developers would be less inclined to develop on the 360, because Microsoft would *still* be actively seeking out publishing deals, marketing deals, etc ,to get the most out of 3rd parties.

So, we're back to square one. As a consumer, sales are nearly irrelevant to each and every one of us, unless counting numbers happens to be a hobby of yours (or you happen to be scouting jobs as an analyst).

I agree with you (barring a few exceptions).

 

[tha_con]

Quite true, while consumers aren't interested in sales directly they ARE interested in the by product of sales even though they aren't aware of it.

More sales = more games = more chance of a stand out game = more sales = more games = more chance of a stand out game, etc. It's a bit of a vicious cycle.

Once PS2 had a substantial lead in sales there was absolutely nothing MS could do for the Xbox that would even remotely change anything. PS2 just snowballed and all MS could do was hope there were enough people looking for something different that the losses for Xbox wouldn't be too large. If MS wasn't willing to suffer staggering losses, they would have gone the way of the Sega Dreamcast. And that certainly would have impacted consumers this generation (no X360).

I don't think we're at that point this generation just yet. It could be argued that Wii has reached snowball status, but they aren't really targetting or attracting the same market. In other words sales of Wii are independant of PS3/X360. Or to put it yet another way, if Wii didn't exist I don't think you'd see all that many more PS3/X360 sales. Likewise, it appears most devs are still trying to figure out how to tap into that huge user base.

And X360 while having a commanding lead in the US, doesn't enjoy the same lead over PS3 in other territories.

So for this generation sales indeed may not end up mattering, unless developement dollars follow US market numbers. In which case the X360 has a chance of snowballing to a degree, but nothing like the PS2 over Xbox.

Either way it's not something we'd see for another 1-2 years. As developement time and dollars have already been allocated years in advance for anything coming out soon.

Regards,
SB

I still disagree.

With the Xbox, despite it's poor sales, it still saw superior versions of nearly every EA franchise title, GTA titles, and many other multiplatform titles.

It also got Halo, Forza, Fable, KOTOR, PGR, etc. I think the handful of exclusives it had for the short time on the market were more than enough for the consumers to be interested. The problem wasn't it's sales, it was the fact that it came to the market too late, as a new comer. Even then, you can really use it as an example as it was really the first "new competitor" of it's kind.

With the PS3, we've still seen quite a few excellent titles. Certainly you wouldn't try to suggest any of those weren't "substantial" releases because they didn't sell like gangbusters the first month?

The PS3 could sell 150K every month for the next 12 months, that wouldn't change the landscape of software coming out in the immediate future. In fact, it's unlikely we'd see an impact of such consistently low sales for at least 18 months. The console already has an install base of around 20 million world wide. To a developer, a port has the 'potential' to sell at least 1 million copies within a 6 month period. That's lucrative.

I just don't think that "low sales" of the PS3, or any console for that matter, have even the slightest bit of impact on the console once they reach a decent sized install base.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's where I think we'll just end up having to agree to disagree as it's almost impossible now to pull up relevant figures for the Jaguar, 3DO, Dreamcast, Saturn, and a few other contenders to Sony/Nintendo.

I still think it's quite likely that the Xbox brand would have followed in the step of the Dreamcast had it not been for MS's willingness to suffer incredible losses in order to give it a viable chance in the next round.

I don't think that PS3 is currently in that dire shape. As I've said before they are only really at a relatively large disadvantage in the US. In other territories it's currently alot closer, although MS is pushing hard to gain ground in Europe without much of a response from Sony. And Sony doesn't appear to be doing much to change the situation in the US. At least not yet...

However, all that said. It is my opinion that it is having an impact or will have an impact on games being made for current consoles as well as how developement money is being allocated. And if (really BIG IF) numbers continue to slide for PS3 then things could potentially get ugly. IE - it could become the Xbox of this generation.

However, there's still some extremely compelling exclusives coming down the pipe, so I don't think it'll get that bad. God of War III "should" move some consoles and will probably have a larger impact on PS3 sales than MGS4 did.

Regards,
SB