55M Xbox 360 consoles shipped in 6 years

[Ghostz]

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.

Sony tried that argument and it failed. Remember?

 

[function]

Sony tried that argument and it failed. Remember?

Erroneous!

 

[DuckThor Evil]

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.

This touches your point only partially so apologies for that, but Japan is a pretty big outlier in the quantities part, that does matter and it should be identified. If you remove Japanese sales from both, the rate of sales have been pretty similar in the rest of the world.

Yes 360 is also far stronger than the average in the NA, but as far as games we are getting and playing, the situation in the domestic Japanese market is of little relevance. It is somewhat of a different world out there.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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

In this particular evaluation, where the comparison is how price has impacted (or not) sales, I'd say the price being compared by shoppers is the perceived cost. To Joe Public, I don't imagine they tally up all the peripheral and services that they may spend over the years, and I don't think if someone was choosing between XB360 and PS3 a few years ago, they'd have added $200 of Live! subscription onto 360's list price. I think it's a fair assessment that for the first 50 million units that both XB360 and PS3 have sold, PS3 has typically been a good $100 more expensive in the perception of those picking one or the other. Recent changes in pricing and features will affect the following however many millions of units sold.

 

[ShadowRunner]

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.

That is a possible answer to the question, yes.

There is a clear and concise question to answer, why PS3 had been selling more at a higher buy-in price. Could well be as you suggest, PS3 is better overall value to more people. Or because of brand power. Franchise tie ins. Effect of japan (thanks Dr. E). Or any number and combination of things.

 

[function]

In this particular evaluation, where the comparison is how price has impacted (or not) sales, I'd say the price being compared by shoppers is the perceived cost. To Joe Public, I don't imagine they tally up all the peripheral and services that they may spend over the years, and I don't think if someone was choosing between XB360 and PS3 a few years ago, they'd have added $200 of Live! subscription onto 360's list price.

I think for a lot of shoppers the cost of Live isn't factored in (I wonder how many Wii -> Kinect customers get a nasty shock), but most of the core gamer crowd by now will know that you pay for online play with the Xbox and I can't imagine buying something with known ongoing costs and not thinking about that. But I could be part of an insignificant minority there.

Sony still think PSN being free is worth talking about (first sentence of the description on the first page of the PSN section on the Playstation website) and I'm inclined to agree it's worth promoting.

I think it's a fair assessment that for the first 50 million units that both XB360 and PS3 have sold, PS3 has typically been a good $100 more expensive in the perception of those picking one or the other.

Typically, I'd guess yes. But my possibly blinkered mind can't accept that there aren't millions of PS3 owners out there who before purchasing thought "£40 a year for online? I'd rather not." and to some degree factored that into their purchasing.

For the amount of online gaming I now do on my 360 the Live costs are a pretty big disincentive.

 

[function]

That is a possible answer to the question, yes.

There is a clear and concise question to answer, why PS3 had been selling more at a higher buy-in price. Could well be as you suggest, PS3 is better overall value to more people. Or because of brand power. Franchise tie ins. Effect of japan (thanks Dr. E). Or any number and combination of things.

I think it's any number of the above, in different balance for different people.

Once I get a HD tv I don't see how I can justify not getting a PS3. A great Blu Ray player with some great exclusive games, and I can even play online with it because there's no charge. That's how it works out for me.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Its hard to get an idea on just how big an effect free online has had on PS3 console sales. Speak to some people and its a big plus, speak to others and they think PSN is a big negative and would rather have a paid for service. I dont think so personally, but its feasable they would have sold more consoles had they offered a Live equivelant instead.

 

[function]

Its hard to get an idea on just how big an effect free online has had on PS3 console sales. Speak to some people and its a big plus, speak to others and they think PSN is a big negative and would rather have a paid for service. I dont think so personally, but its feasable they would have sold more consoles had they offered a Live equivelant instead.

Well, that is another interesting way of looking at it. If PSN had cost as much as Live but been competitive as a service, how would things have turned out? What if it had cost more and been better? And what if that income had been used to sub the price of the hardware (even more)?

I wasn't meaning to pin all of the extra retail price that the PS3 could support on free PSN btw, I was using it as an example (one that comes to the forefront of my mind) of how there are different ways to look at the platform cost. Blu Ray is another that makes no difference for some people, and gives the platform a lot of value for others (like me).

Upfront retail price has often not told the full story IMO. I can remember being told by Amiga and ST owners that the SNES and MD were too expensive, and that their computers were actually much cheaper because all the games were "free".

 

[Sonic]

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

Ok. How long did it take Sony to achieve that compared to MS? What is their margin on each system now? Do both Sony and MS able to still make profits while dropping price $50? I would assume MS has a little more breathing room in that area but I could be wrong.