Basically they seem to be saying sales in the next generation will be similar to this generation, but with Sony having a somewhat smaller lead over MS, and MS doing much better than Nintendo (IMO that's a dubious claim, considering Gamecube will probably sell more than X-Box over it's lifetime).
BBC: PlayStation 'wins next gen wars' :)
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
cthellis42 said:Magnum PI said:
I thought it was just that they ARE tools!
Too much to go on to predict specific sales. I have no issue with thinking that, all things being equal, Sony will lead next generation as well (providing nothing catastrophic happens with PS3 or exponentially good with the others), but to be predicting sales 5-6 years from now to the nearest million?
No, it's not silly.
Silly are 'launch strategy' debates.
Silly are 'which console is teh most powerful' debates.
When you actually have multi-million dollar budgets to plan over the next few years and need to know how you are going to allocate your development resources you sure as hell are going to be making market estimates based on the current cycle, demographic and economic trends, and any other bit of information you can extrapolate from. What these specific anaylsts based their market predictions on isn't mentioned in the report, but it is certainly more than simply assuming Sony will sell roughly the same number as the current cycle.
Has the PS3 already won the next cycle. Yes.
I'm not sure that MS will even release the next version of the Xbox, regardless of what early devkits have been released. MS's stock has been in decline for the past three years and the financial world is talking of it becoming a "value stock", ie stagnent growth. MS execs are warning of a major drop in revenue over the next year from a variety of factors, mostly from the massive discounting of software prices MS is having to resort to to stop the marketshare loss to Linux. The giant amount of red ink from the Xbox project is a prime canidate for getting the axe, regardless of talk of grand strategies for the livingroom.
Tuttle:
Microsoft's reaction to Round 1 of the console wars isn't to play it more safely... it's to double down. Because MS is designing a smarter console, people think it means they're licking their wounds? Hardly. The first console had to be designed and brought to market on such a short schedule that it didn't have time to be elegantly planned for good cost-reduction over its lifespan. They do, however, have enough time for the next round and will of course be taking such measures. The last console was relatively beefy performance-wise because it made for an easy one-up and selling point to get, coming out as late as it did, over PS2. However, they know it's not a selling point worth going far out of their way to get because they know the console war is really fought with marketable properties rather than spec sheets (MS knows that the mainsteram consumer didn't buy Xbox because it was more powerful; they bought it to play good, appealing games like Halo). They have no problem passing up the performance crown this time, since it's no longer as practical to get while planning from their follow-the-leader position, as they'll never have to admit to it nor worry that it'll be significant to sales anyway.
MS can afford to play this game at a whole other level than Sony, like Sony did to SEGA. If you actually question their commitment towards what they've identified to be one of their main pillars of business going into the future, you might want to ask AOL what the chances of that really are.
MS is the financially strongest company in the world. They have more autonomy from shareholder influence than any other publically traded company because nobody is projected to make more profit and make it with as much assurance than they into the foreseeable future. They have so much money that the government said they couldn't keep stockpiling it, so MS used the opportunity to make shareholder dissention even less likely by finally issuing a dividend. Even if shareholders tried to pressure them against their plans, MS top executives could disregard the threat because they company would jump at the chance to buy back any shares people bailed on.
Microsoft's reaction to Round 1 of the console wars isn't to play it more safely... it's to double down. Because MS is designing a smarter console, people think it means they're licking their wounds? Hardly. The first console had to be designed and brought to market on such a short schedule that it didn't have time to be elegantly planned for good cost-reduction over its lifespan. They do, however, have enough time for the next round and will of course be taking such measures. The last console was relatively beefy performance-wise because it made for an easy one-up and selling point to get, coming out as late as it did, over PS2. However, they know it's not a selling point worth going far out of their way to get because they know the console war is really fought with marketable properties rather than spec sheets (MS knows that the mainsteram consumer didn't buy Xbox because it was more powerful; they bought it to play good, appealing games like Halo). They have no problem passing up the performance crown this time, since it's no longer as practical to get while planning from their follow-the-leader position, as they'll never have to admit to it nor worry that it'll be significant to sales anyway.
MS can afford to play this game at a whole other level than Sony, like Sony did to SEGA. If you actually question their commitment towards what they've identified to be one of their main pillars of business going into the future, you might want to ask AOL what the chances of that really are.
Sorry, but your signs of impending doom for the Xbox division treat MS as if they don't have projected profits still over a billion semi-annually, and as if the Xbox project wasn't a multiple-generation investment (Xbox Live...???). If MS can't afford to pursue an important goal with a comparatively high degree of reckless abandon, who can?
During the woeful Xbox experiment, MS has been bled from $40 billion in cash reserves to $50 billion. So shareholders will pressure them over declining business opportunities and margins... why do you think they're getting into new areas of business for? What have you read today that suggests they'll be in such a financial predicament and in such need of acquiescing in a standoff against shareholders over stock valuation (which they're already trying to address through other means) that it would make you entertain the possibility of them cutting their losses here?
During the woeful Xbox experiment, MS has been bled from $40 billion in cash reserves to $50 billion. So shareholders will pressure them over declining business opportunities and margins... why do you think they're getting into new areas of business for? What have you read today that suggests they'll be in such a financial predicament and in such need of acquiescing in a standoff against shareholders over stock valuation (which they're already trying to address through other means) that it would make you entertain the possibility of them cutting their losses here?
nondescript
Regular
Deepak said:
LOL. They're quoting figures to 100k - or ~0.2% accuracy for console sales in 2010. When Intel can't even predict its own next quarter profit within 0.2%.
Anyone who takes this seriously is an idiot.
"MS iz doomed" opinions are even sillier than the very silly "nintendo iz doomed" ones...
MS aint going nowhere, even if they "lose" (whatever that means... units sold? profits? software sold? Meh...) every generation of console until 2065...
With regards to the article, saying "Sony will probably be in a very strong position, seen how they have done in the last 2 generations" would be MORE than enough. Saying "Sony will sell 32 milion PS3s before 200X, more than MS and Nintendo combined" is just silly. They don't even know how many PS3 will be PRODUCED before that year... Nor they know when the 3 companies will release when the next gen consoles will be released. Because if we at B3D don't know, no one does. Seriously
MS aint going nowhere, even if they "lose" (whatever that means... units sold? profits? software sold? Meh...) every generation of console until 2065...
With regards to the article, saying "Sony will probably be in a very strong position, seen how they have done in the last 2 generations" would be MORE than enough. Saying "Sony will sell 32 milion PS3s before 200X, more than MS and Nintendo combined" is just silly. They don't even know how many PS3 will be PRODUCED before that year... Nor they know when the 3 companies will release when the next gen consoles will be released. Because if we at B3D don't know, no one does. Seriously
Vince:
I wasn't referring to hardware design; that should be obvious from my analogy at the end which otherwise would've erroneously read that "the PS2's design (at around 3x the silicon cost at comparable feature size, well over a year later) was at a whole other level than the DC's (which managed to hold its own in performance)."
They can't buy "brand names"... A brand name like Playstation was MADE and is now what it is for years of efforts in the marketing department of Sony. That can't be bought. It takes time to change millions of people's minds.
Can they do it? Possibly, but it will take years.
Nowadays Sony is in a VERY comfortable situation, they live on what they have been building in the last 10 years, they live on millions of people's thinking "playstation=cool".
Seen how MS has done this generation, i think it will take a long time before the Playstation brand will come off the first spot...
The thing is, MS is not "cool". Until they become "cool", they will not reach the market penetration Sony enjoys. In the eyes of the people (and i'm merely talking about the billions of people who do not know what a transistor is), Sony is the "coolest electronic company" in the world, be it consoles, TVs, PCs (the VAIOs are very sexy in the eyes of the hobbit), and any electrical equipment. Regardless of the actual quality of their components, which vary from sector to sector...
MS does Windows. And geeky Pc stuff. Not so cool.
Can they do it? Possibly, but it will take years.
Nowadays Sony is in a VERY comfortable situation, they live on what they have been building in the last 10 years, they live on millions of people's thinking "playstation=cool".
Seen how MS has done this generation, i think it will take a long time before the Playstation brand will come off the first spot...
The thing is, MS is not "cool". Until they become "cool", they will not reach the market penetration Sony enjoys. In the eyes of the people (and i'm merely talking about the billions of people who do not know what a transistor is), Sony is the "coolest electronic company" in the world, be it consoles, TVs, PCs (the VAIOs are very sexy in the eyes of the hobbit), and any electrical equipment. Regardless of the actual quality of their components, which vary from sector to sector...
MS does Windows. And geeky Pc stuff. Not so cool.
TheMightyPuck
Newcomer
so what have we discovered here?
There are companies that research various business areas and make predictions.
Sony is the biggest player by far in the console hardware market and has an amazing brand.
Microsoft and Nintendo are trying to compete in the same space. Although Nintendo seems to be focusing on the younger crowd niche whereas Sony is focusing on "owning the living room..." and MS appears to be doing the same.
Each company will probably release a "next generation" model in a couple years or so. Jury is still out on Nintendo.
All three companies are very financially sound although MS and Sony are highly diversified while Nintendo is pretty much a game company and significantly smaller than the other two in terms of revenue.
Amateur enthusiasts who follow the "industry" often have irrational biases approaching religous ferver with respect to certain companies.
Cool
There are companies that research various business areas and make predictions.
Sony is the biggest player by far in the console hardware market and has an amazing brand.
Microsoft and Nintendo are trying to compete in the same space. Although Nintendo seems to be focusing on the younger crowd niche whereas Sony is focusing on "owning the living room..." and MS appears to be doing the same.
Each company will probably release a "next generation" model in a couple years or so. Jury is still out on Nintendo.
All three companies are very financially sound although MS and Sony are highly diversified while Nintendo is pretty much a game company and significantly smaller than the other two in terms of revenue.
Amateur enthusiasts who follow the "industry" often have irrational biases approaching religous ferver with respect to certain companies.
Cool
london-boy said:
I don't think "the people" view corporations like MS and Sony with anthropomorphic qualities like "coolest". Calling Sony "cool" is like calling a rock or a tree stump "cool", unless the tree stump is wearing a pair of sunglasses, in which case it is clearly the coolest. Things might go all topsy-turvy when the tree stump asks MS to the prom, but in the end this is just a plot by Sony to dump a bucket of pigs blood all over MS. At this point MS uses her latent psychic abilities to burn down the gymnasium.
Ok, that was just the weirdest analogy EVER!
Will Microsoft up the ante in the next generation? They are going to have to if they wish to compete with Sony, because it is likely going to be that all consoles will have similar performance. The PS3 may be in the lead by a small or even large amount depending on if its GPU ranges from great to bad. That basically means MS will have to come up with some reason for gamers to switch to the Xbox. I really only see one reason MS has and that is Halo, which in the end isn't going to matter much unless Microsoft has other titles to attract and keep gamers satisfied. The main thing Microsoft has to focus on is building its fanbase and trying to make the Xbox2 become more successful than Xbox1. They needn't go after Sony just yet as it may seem like they are SEGA when they went software only. We all know what happened to the most amazing company in the world, it's games quality dwindled along with its game sales.
Sony obviously expects Microsoft to give it their all and I'm sure Sony is well prepared for it. Microsoft is also likely to be prepared to counter anything Sony does. That can all be safely assumed, it can also be a safe assumption that PS3 will have the most sales.
There is one major thing that will be a factor in the initial sales of all three next generation systems. That being HYPE. The hype machine is a powerful tool used by companies to promise bigger and better things over the competition and the current offerings. It is very effective in this way that Sony and MS will probably hype their machines to grand visions of world domination. I fully expect the Xbox2 hype to begin very soon if there is even a small demonstration in this month as has been stated elsewhere. I expect a lot of people to go nuts over what the Xbox2 will be cabable of, but I also expect Microsoft to keep many details close to its chest so it doesn't reveal everything at once. I'm starting to think the Xbox2 hype will be big, maybe even huge. It will be on a level that Xbox1 before it was here couldn't even dream of.
PS3 hype will come by the droves from Sony and also from its fans. A qood question is, will PS3 hype overshadow the hype coming from Xbox2. Afterall, these are hardware wars and it does look like it will be a bloody war this time around.
And I will say this again, don't count Nintendo out. They may just be able to make a substantial come back in the console arena if it gets its act together.
Sony obviously expects Microsoft to give it their all and I'm sure Sony is well prepared for it. Microsoft is also likely to be prepared to counter anything Sony does. That can all be safely assumed, it can also be a safe assumption that PS3 will have the most sales.
There is one major thing that will be a factor in the initial sales of all three next generation systems. That being HYPE. The hype machine is a powerful tool used by companies to promise bigger and better things over the competition and the current offerings. It is very effective in this way that Sony and MS will probably hype their machines to grand visions of world domination. I fully expect the Xbox2 hype to begin very soon if there is even a small demonstration in this month as has been stated elsewhere. I expect a lot of people to go nuts over what the Xbox2 will be cabable of, but I also expect Microsoft to keep many details close to its chest so it doesn't reveal everything at once. I'm starting to think the Xbox2 hype will be big, maybe even huge. It will be on a level that Xbox1 before it was here couldn't even dream of.
PS3 hype will come by the droves from Sony and also from its fans. A qood question is, will PS3 hype overshadow the hype coming from Xbox2. Afterall, these are hardware wars and it does look like it will be a bloody war this time around.
And I will say this again, don't count Nintendo out. They may just be able to make a substantial come back in the console arena if it gets its act together.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
IMO:
PS2 early adopters will be ready for a new console in 2005. If Sony doesn't deliver it to them and MS puts together a nice package with two or three popular games (think Grand Theft Auto next, Perfect Dark Zero, and something cool from Tecmo), then Xbox 2 will come out of the gate pretty strong.
The most popular franchises in the US right now are:
Metal Gear
Gran Turismo
Grand Theft Auto
Halo
EA Sports
Movie Licenses
Splinter Cell
Mario
Zelda
SOCOM
Final Fantasy
I'm pretty sure that MS can get GTA and Splinter Cell games for Xbox 2 launch and the promise of Halo 3 in 2006 (delayed to 2007, but that's beside the point). Then they can fill out the lineup with things like Perfect Dark, EA games, Project Gotham Racing 3, Banjo Kazooie, Killer Instinct, something promising from Digital Anvil and Molyneux (if Fable delivers the goods).
They can launch in 2005 at $299 and drop to $249 and put out Halo 3 for the PS3 launch in the US for the Fall of 2006, assuming that's when Sony decideds to launch.
Sony's big problem is that it won't have GT4 and MGS3 until Fall 2004 so it can't possibly have these franchises ready to go until 2006 at the earliest. The PS3 will probably be more difficult to tap then Xbox 2.
My general feeling is that MS is going to try to play to their strengths: Dev tools. They will make Xbox 2 easy to program and cost effective rather than try to compete with Sony directly. Then they can shorten the console cycle to 4 years if they want. Given the easier learning curve and the possibility of launching consoles at $249 instead of $299 or something, they might be able to make this model fly.
It's very risky, but if it works then Sony can't hope to recoup their investment in fab technology by the time the sixth generation starts, since Xbox 3 would be unveiled in 2008, only 18 months after PS3 launches.
Cheap, easy to develop for, shortened cycle, concentration on software. That's the route I think MS will attempt to counter Sony's IMO overinvestment in technology.
Are gamers really going to notice the difference between 400 million polygons per second and 1 billion? Probably not...
Think of it this way: MS could spend $100 extra on each Xbox 2 to make it competitive with PS3 technology. That would cost them $1 billion on the first 10 million sold, which is money much better "lost" on software development and marketing...
PS2 early adopters will be ready for a new console in 2005. If Sony doesn't deliver it to them and MS puts together a nice package with two or three popular games (think Grand Theft Auto next, Perfect Dark Zero, and something cool from Tecmo), then Xbox 2 will come out of the gate pretty strong.
The most popular franchises in the US right now are:
Metal Gear
Gran Turismo
Grand Theft Auto
Halo
EA Sports
Movie Licenses
Splinter Cell
Mario
Zelda
SOCOM
Final Fantasy
I'm pretty sure that MS can get GTA and Splinter Cell games for Xbox 2 launch and the promise of Halo 3 in 2006 (delayed to 2007, but that's beside the point). Then they can fill out the lineup with things like Perfect Dark, EA games, Project Gotham Racing 3, Banjo Kazooie, Killer Instinct, something promising from Digital Anvil and Molyneux (if Fable delivers the goods).
They can launch in 2005 at $299 and drop to $249 and put out Halo 3 for the PS3 launch in the US for the Fall of 2006, assuming that's when Sony decideds to launch.
Sony's big problem is that it won't have GT4 and MGS3 until Fall 2004 so it can't possibly have these franchises ready to go until 2006 at the earliest. The PS3 will probably be more difficult to tap then Xbox 2.
My general feeling is that MS is going to try to play to their strengths: Dev tools. They will make Xbox 2 easy to program and cost effective rather than try to compete with Sony directly. Then they can shorten the console cycle to 4 years if they want. Given the easier learning curve and the possibility of launching consoles at $249 instead of $299 or something, they might be able to make this model fly.
It's very risky, but if it works then Sony can't hope to recoup their investment in fab technology by the time the sixth generation starts, since Xbox 3 would be unveiled in 2008, only 18 months after PS3 launches.
Cheap, easy to develop for, shortened cycle, concentration on software. That's the route I think MS will attempt to counter Sony's IMO overinvestment in technology.
Are gamers really going to notice the difference between 400 million polygons per second and 1 billion? Probably not...
Think of it this way: MS could spend $100 extra on each Xbox 2 to make it competitive with PS3 technology. That would cost them $1 billion on the first 10 million sold, which is money much better "lost" on software development and marketing...
Hype and mindshare obviously go a long way, which is one reason predicting exact sales that far off is foolish to attempt. Sony and Nintendo, for instance, have something that will affect them in the public's eye well before the next generation launches: their upcoming portables. If the PSP or DS fail to deliver or just underperform, each could take a hit that would cast aspersions on their mainstream console entries as well. Similarly, notable successes could translate to further sales, and kick Microsoft back a separate notch because it doesn't have the additional visability or added mindshare. ...and we haven't yet seen the last of the current machines, as Microsoft is ramping up Live and trying to press every advantage of their machine they can, the PS2 and Gamecube are pushing for usefulness from new peripherals, and both have connectivity features from their upcoming (and existant) portables seeing more play and may have lasting image effects... How will mindshare itself fluctuate if Sony and Nintendo ride other successes and their next generation of consoles are seen as overall improvements in every way, while Microsoft's may not have all the advantages they carried this generation and is seen as a scaling back?
<shrugs> There are some things one CAN say with reasonable certainty, but 5+ year exact sales predictions with major events running in-between that are unknown are just hokum.
<shrugs> There are some things one CAN say with reasonable certainty, but 5+ year exact sales predictions with major events running in-between that are unknown are just hokum.
from what I can tell.. it seems to me that Lazy8s is referring to the fact that Microsoft can compete on "a whole other level" financially speaking ..... For example, even if the Xbox 2 turns out to be a complete and utter flop, Microsoft would still have more than enough finances to stay in the console business if they wanted to (their shareholders might not like it very much, thoughVince said:Lazy8s said:
Oh right. Where's that... ahh yes.
) .... however, if the PlayStation 3 turns out to be a complete and total flop (highly unlikely, but if it did), Sony would be in serious trouble .. even considering the fact that Sony is a large electronics company that sells a lot more than just game consoles, their console business has become a very singificant part of their business...
