All purpose sales and sales rumors/anecdotes thread next gen+

My point is that both are not readily available, as pointed out by those links. They may be available in your area, but based on what I've heard, that is NOT a normality. It's pretty incredible that the PS4 is still supply constrained going into January despite crushing all launch sales records.

The X360 was fairly successful in its first year, without any competition at all. They were able to secure several third-party exclusives, many of which eventually made their way to PS3 once it picked up steam. Gears of War, BioShock, Mass Effect to name a few. The deals were probably made prior to any sales figures, but they knew they would have a years headstart, which is huge. All of them except Gears of War were timed exclusive deals, probably because they knew the PS3 was coming soon.

And you're right, MS did pay for them, and that was my point... they were able to easily secure third-party exclusives because they had a huge lead on the competition at the time. What third-party exclusives were MS able to secure afterwards?

Now that the PS4 has the advantage in install base, it will be harder (or cost a lot more money) to secure third-party exclusives.

Based on everything I have said. Software and price are the two biggest drivers of sales, where I feel Sony will have the advantage in both areas.

Agree to disagree... I think they did get them, for a relatively low price, because of their year headstart. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can't see how securing third-party exclusives is more difficult when you're trailing the competition vs having a year headstart on the competition.

 

Competition/capitalism discussion moved here

 

This is not fact, but a rumor! But from all indications within the realm/circle I deal with, PS4 sales did outpace XB1 North American sales for December. So an unofficial heads up...

 

Your PS2 figure is way out of you are counting the first two years. It did 10.61m in its first year on sale, then in the second year it did 18.07m for a total of 28.68m units. PS2 was truly a beast.

 

PS2 was released in Japan just before the end of Sony's fiscal year, so the "first" year is sometimes shown to be very low because of that. Also the non WW prior launches skew these comparisons big time in other cases as well.

 

Woah! What if I didn't want to be the center of attention in the hipster forum?? Now all the communists will bully me into submission.

 

The PS2 also had the Slim and the Super Slim (or were they the same? Memory fails me) which cost less than a Vita does today, so not really comparable situations...

 

Ps2 just had one slim model which was super slim

 

The "first year" consists a total of less than four weeks of sales in Japan only...

 

I assumed most here would understand that the launch "year" of each of these would be a partial year with limited supply. The point of the comparison was to show that even when you add an additional year of availability onto the prior consoles to mitigate the effect of the extreme lack of supply of PS 1 & 2 that the 4.2M sold-through number far exceeds what would be expected from prior performance. It's a shockingly large number.

 

Everyone can probably agree that the 4.2M is a great number, but the PS2 example is just horrible. These "two years" of it having 10.6M in reality only contain about 13 months of Japan AND only 5 months in NA and 4 months in Europe. The numbers Nathansfortune gave for PS2 are way more proper and accurate view of the situation, they still only contain a very limited non Japan first year for the console. Your two year period starts 20 months before the console was released in Europe.

 

No. We weren't all agreeing with the 4.2M being a *great* number. Hence the comparisons. That's the only reason for them. You're reading more into this than was intended. Be certain that if I really was trying to make an exhaustive comparison I would have at least tried to account for all of this, but I wasn't, so I didn't.

I'm comfortable using those numbers the way I intended. They were quick to hand and supported my point If you want to dig further for better information in order to support a more comprehensive analysis, go for it.

 

That wasn't the argument made. You're heading down the excluded middle. Competition can be good and beneficial without winners and losers being absolutely necessary. That may be a common outcome, but it isn't the only possible one. And debatably, not even the best.

 

Well, if they usually make something funny the Batanetes style would be perfect, but I understand what you mean.

Talking of which, I very very much loved the Batanetes, I always ended up laughing and crying out of tears, tears of joy of course.

Besides that I had a huge huge crash on Ines Castel-Branco, how beautiful she is. I loved her so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK-iGa_T1Ys

"Mais porque nao meu bomboncinho"

p.s. sorry for the off-t

 

Eh? Since when in the history of console launches have they not been supply constrained going into January after a holiday launch? That part isn't incredible at all. And my "area" for this anecdotal evidence includes California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. All areas that I drove through on my cross country trek. It's true these were only Targets and Walmarts (no need to stop into Gamestop or electronics only stores on my trip across the Country), but this is by no means a sample of what is available in just X Local Town USA.

This makes absolutely no sense. The only "exclusive" that MS got for free by launching first was Madden, because EA wanted to showcase the "next gen" Madden and the PS4 wasn't released yet. Every other exclusivity deal that MS had, timed or otherwise, was bought and paid for by MS prior to the 360's launch and prior to any sales figures.

What 3rd party exclusives did Sony acquire after the PS3 had established a capable market share? Why would any company continue to outlay money for exclusives once they have an established user base? At that time, price point becomes a far greater determiner of sales than exclusivity.

Where does Sony have an advantage in software? I do not get how you are getting from A to B to C.

So you think that the year head start that the 360 had over the PS3 allowed them to get exclusives or timed exclusives at a cheaper price than they could do for the One because they didn't have the year head start? There's some logic to that possibility. It passes the smell test, but there's no facts to back it up.

And frankly I don't see how anyone believes that either console manufacturer is actively seeking to open their pocketbooks to secure third party exclusives after the launch of their console. Sure, they'll pay for exclusive DLC or other little niggling things, but nothing like what they do in order to build their library and marketing position prior to launch (like MS did with Titanfall, for example).

In order for me to put any credence to your theory, you're going to have to show me examples of third party exclusives that were obtained by either MS or Sony for the PS3 or 360 well after their launch. I can't think of any.

 

When in history has a console sell 4.2M in the first 1.5 months? Never... not even close in fact.

Interesting... so all of the towns you've visited had PS4s in stock, yet NO online retailer have them available, and every other anecdotal report, including my own, have said that there are no PS4s in sight. Very strange... Sony's allocation in the US seems very poorly managed. /s

Why do you keep saying 'free'? I never once said free.

And a years headstart is just as good as a lead in sales... because it's a GUARANTEED lead.

When did I say Sony acquired third-party exclusives? I clearly said that Sony generally doesn't operate that way.

Software is always important. If you don't think so, then again, agree to disagree.

Why do you keep twisting my words, or even putting words in my mouth? I said that I personally feel that Sony will have a software advantage, because they are known to have one of the best first-party teams, all of which are working on PS4 now. PlayStations have always had great software from their first-party teams... Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Sony San Diego, Polyphony Digital, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch, Evolution Studios, XDev, Team ICO, Media Molecule to name a few. Then they have a handful of what I would consider '2nd party' teams working exclusively for PS, such as Quantic Dream and Ready at Dawn.

Again twisting my words.

I absolutely think that it was cheaper for MS to secure third-party exclusives when they had a year headstart vs when they're trailing the competition in install base, yes.

There's no way I can prove that, so just agree to disagree. Personally I think MS was/is far more active than Sony in trying to secure exclusive deals with third-parties because their first-party team isn't nearly as strong as Sony's (IMO). Many of their exclusives last gen were from third-parties, or at least a lot more than the PS3's. I think MS made several deals with third-parties because they were in a good position to with the 360 at launch, with absolutely no direct competition for a whole year. Once the PS3 established a solid user base, those deals weren't happening any more, probably because it became too expensive.

My whole point in all of this is, unless MS strengthens their first-party studios, I feel Sony will have an advantage in software in the long run.

 

Exactly, and I've made it clear that it is amazing that both the PS4 and the One have sold so many units, with so little going for them (in terms of games, etc), and are still so readily available. I think this is a great thing for the console gaming industry. You seem to be pushing some odd agenda that I'm trying to figure out.

No, that's not what I said. Go back and read my messages. I've clearly stated that some stores had NEITHER console, some stores had BOTH, some stores only had One's and stores that had both had more One's than PS4's.

I've clearly stated that One's are more readily available than PS4s. HOWEVER, it is not difficult at all to find a PS4. Not just in my Small Town USA, but also in any of the towns I've passed through during the last month.

I don't. I added it once to that last message in regard to the exclusivity to the Next-Gen Madden release because you are the one that added COST into the equation when you stated that exclusives would cost LESS last generation because MS launched first and if they wanted to acquire exclusives this generation it would cost them more because they didn't launch first. MS didn't PAY to get "Next Gen Madden" on the 360. They got it for "free" by the simple fact that they launched first. All the other exclusives or timed exclusives they had to pay for.

Uhhhh.. What? Your entire premise was that it would be more difficult for MS to acquire third party exclusives now that they aren't leading in the install base.

I've said that MS acquired all those third party exclusives PRIOR to launch, before install base numbers even existed. I asked you to demonstrate where EITHER manufacturer spent money to acquire exclusives AFTER launch. Now you're saying Sony just doesn't do that.

Great. When has MS ever done that?

Where is the support for your idea that it will be more difficult for MS to acquire third party exclusives because Sony has sold more PS4 than MS has sold Ones? Where is the support for your idea that MS (since you just stated that Sony never does it anyway), acquires third part exclusives AFTER LAUNCH?

And none of that has anything to do with third parties, right? Can we agree on that? Nothing you've said above has anything at all to do with third parties.

Yet, this discussion started because you stated that it would be more difficult to acquire third party exclusives based on launch window sales data.

So what relevance does any of that have to do with this discussion?

How can you not see that these are two completely different things?

I've already said that the idea that third party exclusives were cheaper to obtain for the 360 because they launched a year earlier is logical and passes the smell test. There's no facts to back this up, but it seems like a sound enough theory that I'm willing to agree.

But then you take another leap into "trailing competition in install base". How do you get there? The exclusivity deals were done prior to launch. They are always done prior to launch. If you can't provide examples of exclusivity deals that were done after both consoles were established you have absolutely nothing to base your conclusions upon.

Sorry, we can't agree to disagree because what it comes down to is timing. MS was certainly more active in acquiring third party exclusives with the 360 than with the One. Were they aided by the fact that they launched a year earlier so those exclusivity rights came at a lesser cost? Possibly.

Is it clear this year that MS didn't focus on exclusivity deals for third party games and focused on spending their money in other areas instead (such as the NFL deal)? Absolutely.

Do you have anything at all to point to the fact that MS was still trying to obtain exclusivity deals with third parties after the PS3 had an established user base? If not, your entire theory lacks any sort of factual foundation at all.

That's fine, and that's all well and good, and I'm not sure I disagree with your statement.

My point is that the difference in install base between the PS4 and One has no impact at all on acquiring third party exclusives. Third party exclusives are obtained prior to launch, not afterwards. You haven't give a single example of a third party exclusive that was obtained by either MS or Sony after both consoles had established their install base.

Why? Because it doesn't happen. Once you establish your install base you no longer need to spend the money to acquire third party exclusives because console price point is a greater determining factor.

I think MS made a huge mistake in not acquiring more third party exclusives prior to launch.
I don't think at this point, with both consoles having tremendous launches and yet still available, that the difference in install base has any impact on obtaining third party exclusives. Because those exclusives would have been obtained prior to launch.

 

I have no agenda... my ONLY point was that the PS4 is NOT easy to find and that the demand is still high. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please explain to me how PS4s are selling for higher than retail on ebay. Are people just dumb?
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Video-Game-...om=R40&_nkw=ps4&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc

I never said Sony does, I said MS does. Examples post launch would be the rest of the Gears of War games (Epic owns the IP according to them), Left 4 Dead and Titanfall (which is also a last-gen exclusive and could have easily been a next-gen only exclusive). Ryse was actually supposed to be an X360 title as well, but got pushed to being an X1 launch game.

How about common sense, or that it would be a bad business decision to make a third-party title exclusive to a platform with a lower install base without charging MORE money for it? And the fact that the exclusive deals for the X360 considerably slowed down post launch, once the PS3 established a solid install base?

My support for the idea that MS acquires third-party exclusives after launch has already been said. Now proof that Sony doesn't work that way, is the fact that the PS3 has very few third-party exclusives. Metal Gear Solid 4 is the only one that comes to mind.

You ASKED me how I feel Sony has the advantage in software... THAT's why I brought it up.

Unless the PS3 can somehow manage to sell millions without even being in existence, then it was preeetty clear that the X360 was going to have an advantage in terms of install base. There's no doubt in my mind that their headstart was used as leverage in their negotiations.

 

Uhh... Yes, people are dumb. I'm sorry if I'm the first person to tell you this. Santa Claus doesn't exist either and the Tooth Fairy is just your parents leaving coins under your pillow so you forget about the fact your mouth hurts.

SWING and a ... MISS! oooh, too bad. MS's deal with Epic for Gears of War was done prior to release and included the rights for all sequels. I see nothing about L4D that says it wasn't an exclusive prior to launch and the rights for Titanfall were acquired for the One.

So, you've got nothing then, right?

I have NO idea what you are talking about. Again, exclusives are obtained PRIOR to launch. Of course no third party developer would want to make an exclusive for a console with a small install base. The WiiU is doing great in that regard, right?

DUH. What is your point?

The fact that exclusive deals slowed down (I'd say TERMINATED) post launch is an indication that MS didn't feel the need to pay for exclusives after the launch date.

Uhhhh... No, it hasn't. You haven't demonstrated a SINGLE title that MS had acquired post-launch.