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

[Clukos]

Analysis: Sony pushes past 50 percent of the worldwide console market

Some graphs from the article

Despite the lack of exclusive games on Ps4 (?) it seems to be doing rather well both hardware and software wise. I would say Sony made the right choice by going best hardware/easier to develop because right now the Ps4 is the multi-platform console of choice as both hardware and software suggest. I guess you could say that it is the 360 of last gen but even more popular. Microsoft on the other hand was betting on TV/Kinekt and making Xbox more similar to a multimedia box rather than a pure gaming console.

 

[Clukos]

Also according to the same article it seems that the gap between X1 and Ps4 is increasing (32% -> 50% for Ps4, 27% -> 29% for X1), despite the drop in price for X1, the removal of Kinekt, the switch to focus on core gaming and very competitive bundles at a lower price point than Ps4.

The graph:

It seems as if the Ps4 will sell regardless at this point, no matter the exclusives, features or support. Hopefully Sony can replicate the software support (both games and OS) they had for Ps3/Ps2.

 

[Rangers]

Ars Technica still tend to lowball XB1 shipment estimates a bit IMO like everybody else. But I guess it's nothing huge (they have it at 14.3 I'd have it at 15). Otherwise though good work aggregating some public numbers by them, the Ubisoft thing is interesting.

PS4 is around 8.3 million lifetime in NPD vs 25 million shipped, this is right around USA NPD=33% of worldwide shipments (or 3:1 ratio). I'm thinking that's a decent guesstimatable figure like 50% for Xbox. We see in the last quarter it was much higher, around 700k PS4 in NPD versus 3 million shipped which is more than 4:1. But stuff like that is to be expected, any given quarter can fluctuate from the long term ratios quite a bit.

Last gen last I recall easily rounded numbers PS3 was around 25 million in NPD and 80 million worldwide at the same point in time. So that is close to 3:1 as well, in fact a little over, so 3:1 checks out as a reasonable estimate for PS4, indicating perhaps it will go a bit higher over time.

More on the Ubi thing, it shows the gen is much closer overall than expected, Playstation has just 1.32X of Xbox sales since the gen started for Ubi (1110 million Euro for PS vs 838 for Xbox). However for PS4 vs XBO, which will take over, it's significantly greater, 1.67X.

I guess going forward we can assume Xbox=(Xbox One+Xbox 360) shipments reported by Microsoft more and more just approach Xbox One shipments over time as 360 shipments continue to dwindle away, so at least that can be some basis for comparison with Sony now just reporting PS4 numbers. Maybe even MS will start to do the same and just report XBO numbers (doubt it though, they'll want to obfuscate as much as possible and make their number look higher as possible, as well as avoid direct comparisons the media can seize on).

Amazon for July so far as we near the end of July (maybe not the last update of the chart though)

#6 500GB Batman PS4
#22 1TB XBO+MCC bundle
#24 500GB XBO+MCC bundle

And that's all unless I missed one. So make your guess...I guess another +20% PS4 win like June or something maybe based on that.

 

[Sonic]

I still think this holiday season would be a great time for a PS4 price drop n the US. Drop it to $349 with some decent bundles. I say this because who knows how aggressive MS will get with a Halo 5 + Halo MCC bundle at $299 or some such. I tend to think Sony was caught off guard last year and their November and December sales could have been much higher than they were. I understand that extra $50 in revenue is crucial to Sony's bottom line, but at a certain point in time a price cut makes sense.

If MS isn't so aggressive this holiday season then a price cut is likely less of a decent idea.

 

[Clukos]

If Sony can keep selling the Ps4 like that i don't see a reason for them to drop the price. Maybe offer a bundle with more value but that's about it. I expect Sony is going to drop the price of the Ps4 either by:

• Releasing a slim model (not the CH-12xx variant) on a smaller process that costs less to manufacture
• Or X1 sales blow up so much that it matches or surpasses the Ps4 sales in monthly sales

Basically it's either cost efficient manufacturing or MS becoming more competitive imo. They won't drop the price otherwise.

 

[iroboto]

I still think this holiday season would be a great time for a PS4 price drop n the US. Drop it to $349 with some decent bundles. I say this because who knows how aggressive MS will get with a Halo 5 + Halo MCC bundle at $299 or some such. I tend to think Sony was caught off guard last year and their November and December sales could have been much higher than they were. I understand that extra $50 in revenue is crucial to Sony's bottom line, but at a certain point in time a price cut makes sense.

If MS isn't so aggressive this holiday season then a price cut is likely less of a decent idea.

I think with respect to last year MS doesn't need to price cut and be aggressive this holiday season. They've got three games that should make the bucket list for a lot of players and a ton of third party being released as well. If the games are actually good, the exclusives should drive sales themselves.

We start next week with Gamescom conference which should be more about 2016 games and demos on the floor for the big three, and any other unknown announcements, Rare Replay, then Gears, then Forza, then ROTR and then Halo 5. And third party and indie is sprinkled in there somewhere. If this lineup fails to generate demand for XBO then I see MS getting aggressive, but certainly not before.

 

[BRiT]

I cant see MS dropping price to $299 this year at all without a significant cost reduction sku. I could possibly see them eating profitability and dropping price to $329. I think that price would generate more sales over changing the bundled game package.

As for the large games, i really cant see Gears 1 remake having much of an effect at all on sales. Maybe I'm not harcore enough but I never cared much for the Gears MultiPlayer unless it was Horde which is not in Gears 1 or the Remake. I also think a $40 price for the remake is way too much, even at $30 its questionable.

 

[iroboto]

Agreed. I try to pull myself out of these business/sales thread. I recognize I may not be the target audience but my take away is that games libraries/lineups are the driving force for long term sales, where price reductions drive sale spikes. I'm not sure if the playing field is entirely exhausted with these franchises (MS 1st party), but if Advanced Warfare can turn it around I don't see why any other franchise can't either.
In the end the franchise shouldn't matter, the game just needs to be really good. And we won't know if that's he case until after the game is released. With the exception of remakes...

 

[DieH@rd]

Gears remale is the prime target for becoming the next "pack in" game. They will take out MCC because of Halo 5.

 

[AzBat]

Gears remale is the prime target for becoming the next "pack in" game. They will take out MCC because of Halo 5.

It was originally announced at ComicCon by the Gears Studio head that all Xbox One bundles would include the Gears remake but Microsoft clarified later that only the Gears bundle would get it.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gears-of-war-ultimate-edition-will-be-free-xbox-on/1100-6428772/

Tommy McClain

 

[Rangers]

I cant see MS dropping price to $299 this year at all without a significant cost reduction sku. I could possibly see them eating profitability and dropping price to $329. I think that price would generate more sales over changing the bundled game package.

One problem I see is that I was very surprised MS introduced the 1TB XBO at 399 instead of just slotting it in at 349 and EOL-ing the 500 GB version. This shows me they aren't being as aggressive on price. Although, it's possible they are just taking advantage with the higher price on the 1TB SKU because for now Sony does not have such an SKU.

I've been saying $329 is the lowest I think reasonable this fall for XBO. $329 with Halo 5 packed in would be the most aggressive positioning I could reasonably see happening this fall. $329 without a game, with a lesser game, staying at $349, or so on and so forth being other possibilities.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

it's possible they are just taking advantage with the higher price on the 1TB SKU because for now Sony does not have such an SKU.

Hmm this is little weird, because in Europe Sony does have 1TB SKU. Guessing it should come to US pretty soon too.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

One problem I see is that I was very surprised MS introduced the 1TB XBO at 399 instead of just slotting it in at 349 and EOL-ing the 500 GB version. This shows me they aren't being as aggressive on price.

There is an real price on the sale of the console that Microsoft do not want to drop below because it will push the point of profitability too far from the point of sale for the average gamer. E.g. if selling the console cheaper means the point of profitable return only occurs after that person buys three full priced games this is not good for their finances. Just because we don't see Xbox's finances, it doesn't mean that senior management and the board don't.

Microsoft are presumably looking to build a profitable business, not beat Sony (using the metric of consoles sold) at any cost.

 

[JPT]

Microsoft are presumably looking to build a profitable business, not beat Sony (using the metric of consoles sold) at any cost.

That must be wrong, they are there to prop up our fanboy egoes.

 

[London Geezer]

There is an real price on the sale of the console that Microsoft do not want to drop below because it will push the point of profitability too far from the point of sale for the average gamer. E.g. if selling the console cheaper means the point of profitable return only occurs after that person buys three full priced games this is not good for their finances. Just because we don't see Xbox's finances, it doesn't mean that senior management and the board don't.

Microsoft are presumably looking to build a profitable business, not beat Sony (using the metric of consoles sold) at any cost.

That might be true but I'm starting to think that we cannot discount the 'winner' factor.

I believe that one of the factors propping up the PS4 even without major exclusives is the constant coverage about its sales performance. A fair amount of gamers might be flocking to buy it because it is conceived as the main consoles, selling the most by a large margin which in turn would guarantee the most amount of support, most amount of friends having the same platform etc etc.

Of course other factors like brand, games selection, power and support count. But I think the dominant position helps a bit too, especially when it comes to brand recognition.

 

[Phil]

I agree that both is important. One is the short-middle-term prospect of being profitable - the other, which might be arguably more important, is the long-term prospect. I strongly believe that brandname is one of the most important elements in todays market. If anything Apple has demonstrated this nicely - they are masters in selling their products on the brandname alone - and they also have close to a perfect synergy between their products where one product sells the other. The console market is still quite unique in that with every generation, the playing field more or less "resets", but this is also a very difficult environment.

Looking into the future; I think a strong brandname is key. The strong brandname Sony built up with the PSone and the PS2, indirectly kept the PS3 afloat, despite a horrendously high price, late launch and a launch plagued with lots of issues. The PS4, a sleek, elegant device with the priority set in the right place (lower price, good and easy accessible hardware) has propelled the PlayStation brandname right to the front. Ignoring blatant mistakes Sony might make when PS5 is around the corner, the success of the PS4 will carry over to some degree. The more Microsoft "loses" this generation, the more that negative influence might carry itself over to any future generation (assuming we're looking at roughly the same market).

Building a healthy strong foundation is important. A strong brandname, market and ecosystem too. It will have an impact on any future generation. And I also believe that as technology progressed, the hardware we now know that is replaced with every generation by stronger hardware will start to disappear; either because the market will adopt a more PC like "modular" approach, or a closer tie in between customers and the platforms eco-system that will tie them closer than ever.

It will be key for console vendors to retain their customers from generation to generation, product to product. That is the winning formula. Essentially, everyone wants to be the Apple within their market.

 

[JPT]

Branding is important, but at what cost, I mean, IF Microsoft/Sony loses money on gaming, why keep at it?
Outside of possible profit from the gaming parts of their companies, why are they in this segment?
Is there a masterplan somewhere?

Nintendo to my knowledge is only in gaming, so its quite obvious its their business and why they keep at it.
Sony, well it's on of their better ones, but is it core to their business? What is Sony core business anyway, except from profit.
Microsoft, it has been said that they went into gaming to not give up the livingroom to Sony. But now it seems neither has the living room, its mobiles/tablets/laptops that have it. So why stay?

Gaming and any other hit driven industry, are very risky in my opinion, so why take the risk? Is the payoff that good? And is the payoff only profit or other intangible things?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That might be true but I'm starting to think that we cannot discount the 'winner' factor.

I agree, I'm really only looking at this from the perspective of Ranger's post where he stated Microsoft "aren't being as aggressive on price" because I think Microsoft have hit (or are close too) a financial ceiling where pricing the Xbox lower will offset real profit too far in the future.

And by real profit, I don't mean they made $1 I mean Microsoft are as close to delivering on whatever remedial profit return buisness plan was put in place for Xbox one after they abanonded Kinect - because that is the only thing senior management and the Board will care about. If you're going to take a loss (or "invest in a market" in business speak bullshit) you have to have an end game where profitiability occurs and where there is some likelihood of happening.

 

[MrFox]

If price isn't a major reason why PS4 is dominating sales, a price drop (either for PS4 or XB1) is a waste of money that could be better invested in producing more first parties, or securing more exclusives (the latter will backfire nowadays).

 

[Phil]

Microsoft, it has been said that they went into gaming to not give up the livingroom to Sony. But now it seems neither has the living room, its mobiles/tablets/laptops that have it. So why stay?

Good point. Though I'd argue - 10 years ago (or has it been longer?), smartphones were non-existent. It was just simply mobile phones, predominantly Nokia ones that were part of our social lifes. Then that exploded and Apple, a pretty small player back then started to reach global success, first with its iPod, then the iPhone and suddenly other markets, like their PC market started to pick up too. Now days, smartphones are an integral part of our social life. Entertainment is important too. Gaming perhaps isn't as mass scale like watching movies, or listening to music, reading books, but who knows - the market is expanding and as technology progresses, it may become one of those big things. Consoles certainly are a good way into the "livingroom" - it's a dedicated device that packs a lot of performance and has the potential to become the "hub of entertainment". I guess Microsoft blew it a bit with their Xbox One vision, but it's not the vision that is wrong, I think they simply got the timing wrong. It's going to come eventually. The question is; will it be by a device such as the next Xbox, the next PlayStation, or will it be (more likely) an Android or Apple device that makes the step into the livingroom in a big way.

I think Microsoft will stick around simply because they can and because of the longterm prospect of the gaming market gaining in relevance. Even if it is at a loss. Although, logically, the losses have to be justified.