All purpose Sales and Sales Rumours and Anecdotes [2021 Edition]

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony is extending PS4's lifespan by manufacturing more this year. PS4 makes zero sense! XSS is the same price, better in every way, and more readily available. PS4 isn't even BC with PS3 for late upgraders. If you're in the market for a PS4, what are the reasons not to get an XSS instead?! I'd love to learn from PS4 buyers in 2022 why they are making that choice.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Sony is extending PS4's lifespan by manufacturing more this year. PS4 makes zero sense! XSS is the same price, better in every way, and more readily available. PS4 isn't even BC with PS3 for late upgraders. If you're in the market for a PS4, what are the reasons not to get an XSS instead?! I'd love to learn from PS4 buyers in 2022 why they are making that choice.

Well it has a massive back catalog of games and it is still getting Sony's biggest games. New God of War, Horizon 2 and Gran Turismo 7, So the game line up is very strong, it likely doesn't hamper the manufacturing capacity of PS5 at all and they should have a great profit margin on it. It would be silly not to sell it! Playstation is such a strong brand that even if MS is making gains, there will be people and markets where Sony is clear Nr.1 and could still pull decent sales from PS4. Though I agree 300$/€ does make it a pretty questionable deal...However it's not that much money and challenging availability of PS5 does make it valid to sell it imo.

 

[zed]

Sony is extending PS4's lifespan by manufacturing more this year. PS4 makes zero sense! XSS is the same price, better in every way, and more readily available. PS4 isn't even BC with PS3 for late upgraders. If you're in the market for a PS4, what are the reasons not to get an XSS instead?! I'd love to learn from PS4 buyers in 2022 why they are making that choice.

Yeah series s makes more sense, the only reason I could think of is, if you had aps4 and it broke, so you need a machine to play all your titles you have at home

 

[Aaron Elfassy]

So my hvac guy was replacing my furnace. Saw me playing my ps5. He started asking about what games to play. He’s only ever owned Xbox. His friends all play CoD online and his kids play Fortnite. I ended up selling him my ps4 pro, as I have ps5. He told me he’s been dying to play all the Sony games at get psnow. He just texted me 2 months later and he’s loving all the single play first party Sony games. He went on about how last of us 2 messed with his head for days. He keeps asking me for new games to play. Sony fills a market that no one else is touching. 3rd party single player narrative are less common these days. Sony fills that gap nicely. I get the idea to keep producing ps4. Plenty of untapped market.

 

[iroboto]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1481219949393846272

article:
Xbox Series S and X hits 1m UK sales in strong December | UK Monthly Charts | GamesIndustry.biz

 

[iroboto]

We know the S sells more than the X. More supply of the X doesn't mean its a given that the sales of the X would surpass the S.

Right this is not my intention to say just because Series X is always OOS that it would generate more sales than Series S.

Even if this were true, this is after more than a year. So let's spitball some numbers. suppose that for every 3 Series X consoles sold to date, instead Microsoft could be produced 5 Series S consoles, could Microsoft have been selling that more consoles for the past 14 months?

From the article I linked above:

As a result, Switch was the No.1 console of December. Just behind Nintendo was the Xbox Series S and X consoles, which enjoyed a bumper 108% increase in sales month-on-month. In fact, it is the biggest month yet for Xbox Series X and S, even beating its launch month in November 2020. The increase was driven by a significant increase in stock of the X version of the console.

For me the assumption here is that if people like the S and the S price point, they are unlikely to be a situation where the Series S is OOS and they are staring at a Series X and saying, oh screw it I'll buy the Series X instead. I just don't see that happening unless they are trying to pawn it off for some profit.

I do see someone desperately waiting for a Series X who is willing to buy a Series S because the X was OOS.

So the Series S sales should contain the scenarios in which Series X demand substituted down. And Series X sales do not contain Series S sales substituted upwards because availability is such an issue.

So as long as Series S is not out of stock, that means it cant technically sell anymore than the rate that it is without dropping the price, as increasing the supply won't cause the sales to increase. So all of the Series X sales would be bonus sales ontop of what Series S sells. So together they are better.

If there was never any Series X at all, the most that could be sold is the combination of Series S and X for the assumption above (when X is OOS they switched to S already). But I believe realistically they would have lost the group of users wanting a higher power curve.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So, NSW didn't quite manage to pass lifetime PS1 sales in 2021 (just a few hundred thousand away), but they have passed lifetime Wii sales.

Considering that NSW sold ~24.8 million units in 2021, it's safe to say that NSW will probably pass PS4 in lifetime sales at some point in 2022.

2021 was NSW's first YoY decline in sales (~28.3 million units sold in 2020), so it's possible NSW has hit its peak. Even if there's a further reduction in sales volume in 2022 (likey, IMO), it should still comfortably pass PS4 this year and probably Game Boy as well. Depending on how quickly (or slowly) sales decline, NSW may or may not have a shot at eventually passing DS and PS1. If I had to take a guess, NSW will be somewhere around 120 to 124 million units lifetime by the end of 2022. That represents sales of around 18 to 22 million NSWs for 2022.

Now that NSW has possibly hit its peak, we might start to get more leaks about a possible more powerful refresh and/or new console. IMO, a more powerful refreshed NSW is more likely. Sort of like when Nintendo released the "New 3DS" with a slightly more powerful SOC.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

PS4 makes zero sense! XSS is the same price, better in every way, and more readily available.

Unless you already have a PS4 game library (or access to one) or are one of those maniacs who uses your console to play physical media (DVD, Blu-rays etc).
I'll mention it again, because this seems mind-blowing to some people, but many libraries around the world offer more than just dead tree books. They have video games, audiobooks, magazines, movies, music and more. It's crazy I know!!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

For me the assumption here is that if people like the S and the S price point, they are unlikely to be a situation where the Series S is OOS and they are staring at a Series X and saying, oh screw it I'll buy the Series X instead. I just don't see that happening unless they are trying to pawn it off for some profit.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my question? Let me repeat it. Would Microsoft have sold more Xbox consoles - at this point in time - if they had not manufactured Series X and focussed on manufacturing Series S?

This on the basis that you can get more viable Series S APUs (being smaller) out of a single 17" wafer than viable Series X APUs (being larger). I.e. you can produce more consoles because you have more APUs, which is the bottleneck.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my question? Let me repeat it. Would Microsoft have sold more Xbox consoles - at this point in time - if they had not manufactured Series X and focussed on manufacturing Series S?

This on the basis that you can get more viable Series S APUs (being smaller) out of a single 17" wafer than viable Series X APUs (being larger). I.e. you can produce more consoles because you have more APUs, which is the bottleneck.

Just because someone bought a series X does not mean they would have made a decision to purchase the series S if the X had not been an option. You can't assume that every series X sale would have migrated to a series S sale.

And we could probably run a whole thread on the blowback MS would have received from launching digital only, so it was never an option.

 

[iroboto]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my question? Let me repeat it. Would Microsoft have sold more Xbox consoles - at this point in time - if they had not manufactured Series X and focussed on manufacturing Series S?

This on the basis that you can get more viable Series S APUs (being smaller) out of a single 17" wafer than viable Series X APUs (being larger). I.e. you can produce more consoles because you have more APUs, which is the bottleneck.

And my answer is no. If they didn't manufacture Series X and just focused on S, then supply of S would be greater; this doesn't correspond into sales being higher because we know that today supply is already meeting demand.

In order to get more sales at the same price point you need more demand and supply together; increasing supply alone is only half the equation.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Just because someone bought a series X does not mean they would have made a decision to purchase the series S if the X had not been an option. You can't assume that every series X sale would have migrated to a series S sale.

I know that, and that's not the assertion. Even if the people who would have bought the Series X did not buy a Series S, there would surely have been enough other people interested in buying a Series S to more than compensate.

We know PS4 outsold PS4 Pro 4:1 and what data there is for Xbox One X vs One S is the same story.

Like PS5, Microsoft could have offered two versions, disc and digital-only.

And my answer is no. If they didn't manufacture Series X and just focused on S, then supply of S would be greater; this doesn't correspond into sales being higher because we know that today supply is already meeting demand.

You said this before and what I'll again what I said before. Firstly Series S has been out of stock more than it's been in stock since launch, and just because there are consoles on the shelves, does not meany it's not selling well or that nobody is buying it.

By that logic nobody is buying food in London because my local supermarkets are always stocked with food.

 

[iroboto]

You said this before and what I'll again what I said before. Firstly Series S has been out of stock more than it's been in stock since launch, and just because there are consoles on the shelves, does not meany it's not selling well or that nobody is buying it.

By that logic nobody is buying food in London because my local supermarkets are always stocked with food.

I don't disagree with that concept. I just feel you're double counting here.
If we go with Series X was never produced, and the result is that there would be more overall sales requires 2 assumptions to be true
(A) Every single owner that bought Series X would have bought a Series S
and
(B) Because Series X was supply constrained, there would have been even more sales if these were actually Series S because there was more supply

But (B) is where I feel you're double counting, because anyone who wanted a Series X and couldn't get one due to supply constraint and would buy a Series S is already counted towards Series S supply and demand curve. It's already been sold as part of that group. And if that weren't the case, then at most Series S consoles could have only sold as much as combined total of Series S and X, and that's with perfect migration.

So saying you'd sell even more Series S consoles as a result of relieving the bottleneck around Series X is a double count imo.

And your refute is that Series S has been out of stock, and I agree that at times it does go out of stock, but not nearly at the level that Series X is out of stock globally. So even if this were true, you would be likely to get a Series S within a week of desire whereas Series X constraints have been so terrible we have only ever seen pictures of units for sale shelves this month.

I don't have an issue with saying that Series S sells well, or sells even more than Series X. But from my standpoint, these are 2 products targeted at two different groups of people. There are bound to be customers in the Series X side of things that will not be interested in what Series S has to offer. And so if I think about a Venn diagram where these 2 circles join, despite Series S being a larger circle I don't see any amount of increase of supply being able to overlap with the folks who only want the power of Series X.

If I return to my original posit: S + X sales will be greater than S alone or X alone.

 

[dobwal]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my question? Let me repeat it. Would Microsoft have sold more Xbox consoles - at this point in time - if they had not manufactured Series X and focussed on manufacturing Series S?

This on the basis that you can get more viable Series S APUs (being smaller) out of a single 17" wafer than viable Series X APUs (being larger). I.e. you can produce more consoles because you have more APUs, which is the bottleneck.

No. It would have been contrary to MS messaging and marketing going into the new generation. MS isn't Nintendo whose messaging or IPs never revolved around high end hardware or graphics. MS spent half of last gen pushing the importance of being competitive on the hardware performance front. Basically since the announcement of the One X, top notch visuals has been a major part of MS marketing push. It would have been considered a major capitulation on MS's part and the part of market where performance is important would have soured on MS. How to you convince a bunch of One X buyers to purchase the Series S? "4K is so last gen, sub 1440p is where it is at!!!" is not going to really work.

Now if MS had never adopted that marketing and pushed a strategy using Windows as a high end platform and Xbox as a consumer friendly space for casual gamers then maybe. That would have entailed never releasing the One X and focusing on making the One S as attractive as possible.

 

[Jay]

Sony is extending PS4's lifespan by manufacturing more this year. PS4 makes zero sense! XSS is the same price, better in every way, and more readily available. PS4 isn't even BC with PS3 for late upgraders. If you're in the market for a PS4, what are the reasons not to get an XSS instead?! I'd love to learn from PS4 buyers in 2022 why they are making that choice.

The reason could be people that got rid of their PS4's expecting to be able to pick up PS5 and not being able to.

Last month I think I heard that the PS4/Pro secondhand market was through the roof. People wanting to get back a PS4. Crazy times.

As you say on the surface XSS is the no brainer, but these are people with sellers remorse.

 

[dobwal]

My son asked for a PS4 last year after the PS5 dropped. Basically because he wanted to game with friends that only had a PS console and the PS5 wasn't available for purchase. I flat out told him no since the price gap between a used PS4 and PS5 MRSP was a joke. Luckily, one of his friends gave him a PS4 with a bad internal drive which i consider karma as I gave one of his friends a One so they could play together after I purchased the One X.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't disagree with that concept. I just feel you're double counting here.
If we go with Series X was never produced, and the result is that there would be more overall sales requires 2 assumptions to be true
(A) Every single owner that bought Series X would have bought a Series S and (B) Because Series X was supply constrained, there would have been even more sales if these were actually Series S because there was more supply

No. Forget Series X entirely. Wind back and Microsoft only announce Series S. They bench Series X for a later time and every wafer that is producing 8 viable X APUs is producing 14 viable S APUs so the total console output is greater.

Let me set the scene: it's 2019 and Xbox Series is launching next year in 2020. The silicon shortage is already visible on the horizon (it was, it was just nobody thought it would be more than a blip) and Phil Spencer says "fuck it, instead of making 4m Series S and 3m Series X we're going to make 10m Series S in the first 12 months. Then we'll revisit. Nobody mention the Series X".

 

[iroboto]

No. Forget Series X entirely. Wind back and Microsoft only announce Series S. They bench Series X for a later time and every wafer that is producing 8 viable X APUs is producing 14 viable S APUs so the total console output is greater.

Let me set the scene: it's 2019 and Xbox Series is launching next year in 2020. The silicon shortage is already visible on the horizon (it was, it was just nobody thought it would be more than a blip) and Phil Spencer says "fuck it, instead of making 4m Series S and 3m Series X we're going to make 10m Series S in the first 12 months. Then we'll revisit. Nobody mention the Series X".

lol, I think it may do as well as Series S and X combined sales wise. If going the all Series S route somehow enabled them to reduce the price of Series S further, or improve the Series S (more storage, more CUs, more memory, or a disk drive etc), then I think your reasoning is pretty valid.

But a digital only console with 500GB SSD is likely going to be tough to market when the competition is willing to eat losses to get their digital PS5 to 399.

 

[AlphaWolf]

No. Forget Series X entirely. Wind back and Microsoft only announce Series S. They bench Series X for a later time and every wafer that is producing 8 viable X APUs is producing 14 viable S APUs so the total console output is greater.

Let me set the scene: it's 2019 and Xbox Series is launching next year in 2020. The silicon shortage is already visible on the horizon (it was, it was just nobody thought it would be more than a blip) and Phil Spencer says "fuck it, instead of making 4m Series S and 3m Series X we're going to make 10m Series S in the first 12 months. Then we'll revisit. Nobody mention the Series X".

And none of that guarantees people who bought the halo X would settle for S. It's even possible the lack of the X could have hindered overall sales as I am sure there are a number of S owners who are buying as a placeholder. The lack of PS5 availability certainly would have helped as the option to go elsewhere wouldn't have existed, but I don't think counting on your competitors to be supply constrained is really great business planning.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

lol, I think it may do as well as Series S and X combined sales wise. If going the all Series S route somehow enabled them to reduce the price of Series S further, or improve the Series S (more storage, more CUs, more memory, or a disk drive etc), then I think your reasoning is pretty valid.

It would have. When you simplify manufacturing options you reduce costs. By increasing the number of things you buy, you reduce costs. It's basic economics of scale. By buying the same amount of solid state storage but distributing differently, you spend the same but increase the perceived value of your product.

And none of that guarantees people who bought the halo X would settle for S.

It doesn't, nor does it need to. If by changing a product strategy you lose 100,000 customers but gain 300,000 and revenue rises it's a win. Not changing to retain the 100,000 is a loss.

You may be replacing purchasers of Series X console for more Series S customers and companies lose and gain customers all the time. What is important is not the number of customers but the revenue they bring in. If you can sell more Series S consoles than you can produce Series X consoles then you are expanding the number of people who may subscribe to GamePass which was my original question. GamePass is where Microsoft are betting the farm for profitability in the future and they need active users for that.

This is why they are spending billions on studio acquisitions with a view to making money over the long haul.