55M Xbox 360 consoles shipped in 6 years

[Shifty Geezer]

The 360 is not only selling worse than its competitors in relation to how many years its been on the market place, it's doing it at an extreme price advantage. I simply don't understand the love affair people have with Xbox's numbers.

Then you have a rather limited perception (and a trolling attitude towards people posting sales news as being a 'love affair' with XB360 numbers). Seen solely in terms of competing with contemporary units you can argue that XB360 isn't doing great. Compared to the majority of consoles launched over the history of gaming, and in terms of growth of MS brand, and in terms of expansion of MS's brand from a very US-centric brand last gen to more worldwide this gen, and in terms of eating into Sony's supremely dominant market share of the last two generations, and in terms of not just throwing money down the toilet, 360 is doing well to very well.

Really, the "Playstation" is selling on brand name alone, which is far more impressive.

Only if measuring brand power (and assuming that's true, which it isn't because PS3 has inherent value beyond its brand name). Compared to Sony's prior success, PS3 is selling like crap. Compared to the market leader, PS3 is doing poorly. In terms of making Sony money, PS3 sales are atrocious. These sales figures can be interpreted in lots of different ways depending on what relative information one wants from it, and your singular perspective is not the sole valid interpretation.

 

[Ghostz]

Then you have a rather limited perception (and a trolling attitude towards people posting sales news as being a 'love affair' with XB360 numbers). Seen solely in terms of competing with contemporary units you can argue that XB360 isn't doing great. Compared to the majority of consoles launched over the history of gaming, and in terms of growth of MS brand, and in terms of expansion of MS's brand from a very US-centric brand last gen to more worldwide this gen, and in terms of eating into Sony's supremely dominant market share of the last two generations, and in terms of not just throwing money down the toilet, 360 is doing well to very well.

Only if measuring brand power (and assuming that's true, which it isn't because PS3 has inherent value beyond its brand name). Compared to Sony's prior success, PS3 is selling like crap. Compared to the market leader, PS3 is doing poorly. In terms of making Sony money, PS3 sales are atrocious. These sales figures can be interpreted in lots of different ways depending on what relative information one wants from it, and your singular perspective is not the sole valid interpretation.

Microsoft didn't eat into Sony's market share, Nintendo did. Microsoft's market share only increased what 3 or 4 percent? Compared to the market leader wouldn't you say both Microsoft and Sony are doing poorly? Perhaps middling?!?!?

Additionally, if you want to compare successes of last generation, didn't Nintendo make more money on the Gamecube than Sony made on the Ps2? My perception of the numbers aren't the only ones' limited here.

 

[mrcorbo]

Microsoft didn't eat into Sony's market share, Nintendo did. Microsoft's market share only increased what 3 or 4 percent? Compared to the market leader wouldn't you say both Microsoft and Sony are doing poorly? Perhaps middling?!?!?

Additionally, if you want to compare successes of last generation, didn't Nintendo make more money on the Gamecube than Sony made on the Ps2? My perception of the numbers aren't the only ones' limited here.

Wait, what?

PS2 - 150M, XBOX - 24M, GC - 22M -> 196M total

PS2 - 77%, XBOX - 12%, GC - 11%

Wii - 86M, X360 - 55M, PS3 - 50M ->191M total

Wii - 45%, X360 29%, PS3 - 26%

Even if you roll the PS2s number back to around the launch of the 360 they were at 100M. Compare that to the XBOX and GC's total sales and you get:

PS2 - 69%, XBOX - 16%, GC - 15%

That's a pretty major positive change in market share from XBOX to X360 and the percentage drop from PS2 to PS3 is greater than the percentage gain from GC to Wii. That means that both MS and Nintendo ate into Sony's market share.

 

[swaaye]

Are 20 million of those sales replacements of dead machines?

 

[mrcorbo]

Are 20 million of those sales replacements of dead machines?

Software attach rates say no, unless you believe that 360 owners buy twice as much software as PS3 and Wii owners.

 

[BRiT]

Are 20 million of those sales replacements of dead machines?

Are you asking about faulty PS3 replacements?

As referred to earlier, warranty replacement does not count as sales in the numbers used.

 

[Ghostz]

Wait, what?

PS2 - 150M, XBOX - 24M, GC - 22M -> 196M total

PS2 - 77%, XBOX - 12%, GC - 11%

Wii - 86M, X360 - 55M, PS3 - 50M ->191M total

Wii - 45%, X360 29%, PS3 - 26%

Even if you roll the PS2s number back to around the launch of the 360 they were at 100M. Compare that to the XBOX and GC's total sales and you get:

PS2 - 69%, XBOX - 16%, GC - 15%

That's a pretty major positive change in market share from XBOX to X360 and the percentage drop from PS2 to PS3 is greater than the percentage gain from GC to Wii. That means that both MS and Nintendo ate into Sony's market share.

Yea, don't know where I got 3 percent from. Probably from Patcher or somebody. So a 13 percent increase, not 3. Where most of that came from NA?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Microsoft didn't eat into Sony's market share, Nintendo did.

That's debatable. There's reason to think Nintendo's market is mostly independent of the previous market. That is, the previous gen's gamers mostly bought PS3 and XB360, and Wii was bought but new people.

Compared to the market leader wouldn't you say both Microsoft and Sony are doing poorly? Perhaps middling?!?!?

Yes, that's one comparison. It's a common one when people talk about PSP too, because despite strong sales relative to most handhelds, it's sold well behind the market leader.

Additionally, if you want to compare successes of last generation, didn't Nintendo make more money on the Gamecube than Sony made on the Ps2? My perception of the numbers aren't the only ones' limited here.

I never implied my list of possible interpretations was exhaustive! Although GC's profitability is a different comparison to sales numbers. Certainly it could be said that Nintendo's financial success with GC was pretty amazing considering the competition's performance. I'm not here to argue in favour or against any company as being identified the best performer though - only to point out that loosely used terms just lead to silly bickering about confused semantics, and people should be more careful how they phrase themselves.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm pretty sure I remember just about every "analyst" worth quoting stating the sell ratio of the 360 is closer to their 200 USD price by 60%. At best, the Ps3 has always been 100 USD more since launch and hasn't really changed.

You remember WRONG. Their asp at the end of 2010 was actually above $300 due to the kinect bundles.

 

[patsu]

One of the most unfortunate things about this generation is the way so many Japanese developers "retreated to the PSP" as Mark MacDonald puts it. Even today so many talented studios still seem unprepared to work in HD. I hope that changes as NGP and Project Cafe come online, because I don't want all the quirky, interesting Japanese games to migrate to the 3DS by default...

A lot of the time the rise of the DS and PSP in Japan is spun as a mobile revolution, but I'm not sure that the populace wouldn't have embraced HD console had the Japanese development community been prepared to invest in HD tech and art rather then keep making ~PS2 level games for another 6 years...

Oh yes... A topic for another day ! Capcom, where is my Valkyria Chronicles 2 and 3 ? Hopefully the HD workflow and tools are mature enough to lower the cost ? The Japanese studios seem to have HD cross-platform engine now.

 

[patsu]

I begged the question, to perhaps enlighten people to the fact, that in 6 years, the Ps3 will likely be @ 60-65 million with an average price point of 100 USD MORE than its competitors. Really, the "Playstation" is selling on brand name alone, which is far more impressive. Nintendo couldn't even do that doing the Gamecube years.

Well, numbers are fine but it is more important for Sony to consolidate and offer compelling content for the less casual folks. People have lot's of entertainment choices now. Sony is still their usual calm and stingy self. ^_^ They rely on organic growth, and haven't spent big bucks on consumer promotion. Still very much a "core gamers and their families" play at the moment. They have good/reasonable numbers since PS3 is one year younger and launched 100 bucks more. Hope they have a growth strategy.

 

[swaaye]

Nintendo hasn't had that brand power for non-portables since NES and SNES so Cube surely had fewer rabid fans. PS2 was perhaps the most popular console ever. It is still selling today!

 

[borowki]

All three consoles will probably crack the 100 million mark over their lifetime. The old rule of winner takes all in the console business seems to have been broken. It's worth noting too that the number of current-gen consoles is fast approaching that of last generation (150 PS2 + 24 Xbox + 22 GC).

 

[Sonic]

Good to hear this new for Microsoft. They have likely or will double Xbox's userbase soon and have been making rather nice profits for the past couple years. They've come a long way in the console space and have established themselves as a legitimate player. Their expertise in software, especially operating systems, has helped them turn Xbox Live into something rather awesome what with all the services offered.

They've dominated the core gaming console crowd in the US and have done a respectable job in Europe. They designed their console architecture that has allowed it to become profitable while still being sold at a reasonable price, something Sony has really yet to achieve.

It's long in the tooth for both consoles to come down in price and finally reap the rewards of the cheap mass market people. I feel $249 for the top model (guess would include Kinect) would be the sweet spot.

Looking forward to MS's future in the console world. They have dished out a crap ton of money and have invested wisely. I remember a few years back into the 360's lifespan when very members on this board still booed Microsoft for losing hand over fist with the machine. Now that it has established itself, makes money on each system sold (which is one of Sony's biggest blunders IMHO), and has a hugely successful online subscription service that adds tons of value. I am very much looking forward to Microsoft's next foray in the console world.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Good to hear this new for Microsoft. They have likely or will double Xbox's userbase soon and have been making rather nice profits for the past couple years. They've come a long way in the console space and have established themselves as a legitimate player. Their expertise in software, especially operating systems, has helped them turn Xbox Live into something rather awesome what with all the services offered.

They've dominated the core gaming console crowd in the US and have done a respectable job in Europe. They designed their console architecture that has allowed it to become profitable while still being sold at a reasonable price, something Sony has really yet to achieve.
It's long in the tooth for both consoles to come down in price and finally reap the rewards of the cheap mass market people. I feel $249 for the top model (guess would include Kinect) would be the sweet spot.

Looking forward to MS's future in the console world. They have dished out a crap ton of money and have invested wisely. I remember a few years back into the 360's lifespan when very members on this board still booed Microsoft for losing hand over fist with the machine. Now that it has established itself, makes money on each system sold (which is one of Sony's biggest blunders IMHO), and has a hugely successful online subscription service that adds tons of value. I am very much looking forward to Microsoft's next foray in the console world.

Sony has achieved profitability with each PS3 sold. I guess the subjective part would be the "reasonable price" portion.

 

[Vic]

You remember WRONG. Their asp at the end of 2010 was actually above $300 due to the kinect bundles.

Yep, as discussed before over here in the UK PS3 is nearly £100 more expensive.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Yep, as discussed before over here in the UK PS3 is nearly £100 more expensive.

The kinect bundle with the 250 gb hard drive is more expensive than the 160GB PS3 on amazon's UK site. So apparently, you also are wrong. (more than half of the 360 boxes sold at the end of the year were kinect bundles)

 

[function]

On Amazon.co.uk:

360 4GB + Kinect: £190
PS3 160GB: £200
360 250GB + Kinect: £220

I'd say MS are laughing alright.

 

[ShadowRunner]

The kinect bundle with the 250 gb hard drive is more expensive than the 160GB PS3 on amazon's UK site. So apparently, you also are wrong. (more than half of the 360 boxes sold at the end of the year were kinect bundles)

Thats the current selling price and skus, not the average selling price across the systems life. For most of the time the consoles have been on market the PS3 has been selling at higher quantities at a higher price. When looking at lifetime figures id say it is more relevant to look at the lifetime average selling price.

 

[function]

Platforms now are about more than just hardware, of course.

A launch PS3 is much more expensive than a launch 360, but a launch 360 + a lifetime of Live Gold membership makes a launch PS3 look cheap.

There are lots of different comparisons to be made, all of which probably show ... something.