DFC Report: "Clear possibility that PS3 could end upthird in market share"

[ninzel]

People need to stop casting people as total tech idiots. If that was true the whole move to HDTV would never happen. The whole move to flat screen, then flat panel, displays would never happen. The whole move to CD's, then Ipod would never happen.

People do like cool stuff, and they do know what the most powerful system is. This is ESPECIALLY the case in the target demographic of videogames.

I think what the other poster is saying is that the average person is not sold by tech talk or spec sheets. The product has to, for the most part sell itself. The average person needs to see or hear a difference for the upgrade to be worth it, then there are other factors as well.
Tell a person that this or that system has a bigger disk capacity or more RAM and you will likely be greeted with an empty stare, but show them an HD image over and SD image and you will see there eyes light up.
And I agree with the article,the average person will not perceive the added value of the PS3 over the 360.

 

[McHuj]

I don't see all that happening, but this is what gets me: This should have never been even remotely possible.

You are absolutely right. Personally, I am pissed at Sony in that it seems like they are trying to push PSX2 instead of PS3. The PSX was misserable failure. Should have seen that that was a harbinger of things to come. Seems to me that Sony is too much into trying to push BR, their potential online media stores, and other multimedia services, over games.

Their SKUs should have been a 299 Optional HD, No BR, No Wifi, No HDMI, DVD only, game machine and the $599 SKU. They could have easily targeted both markets pushed their media services without risking much.

 

[pc999]

I have to agree with you on that, and my wife is a perfect example. Yes, she playes the Bejeweled, Mah Jong, etc.. and is even looking forward to Street Fighter 2 on XBL Arcade.

BUT, the only reason she does these things is because I did all of the work for her. I bought and built the PC, I bought the 360, I setup the network, and I showed her where the games were and how to play them. She never would have started playing the little games at MSN Gaming Zone, much less actually bought a console and set it up to go online on her own. Never.

Which means that if someone of them can break the model they will possible make much more money, here before used to be impossible the one who can do that will gain (and expand) market share and raw number of consoles sold (and devs bet prymary on those with higher market share).

So there s money to be made but with a diferent model and I cant see PS3 breaking that model and personally I find a bit hard for (althought they are trying with XBLA and other media features) and IMO Wii may be able (depending of price and marketing).

And like Acert93 (BTW great post) shows there is a good chance of lossing from the old market too.

IMO they will loss market share, how much is depending how they can manage the situation (again, Acert93 post).

 

[Ooh-videogames]

Well, Sony quest to leverage Blu-Ray, may be what put them in third place. I'm not trying to present my thoughts as fact, but its medium that put Nintendo in a position to loose the market share they once had. If your a diehard PS fan, the cost has no effect on spending decisions. To spend 500-600 on a console, requires some element of die-hardism.

What Sony needs, is for Blu-Ray to eliminate the VHS market entirely. We need a new recordable medium, with expected growth numbers for HDTV sales and HDTV channels, it would be a cheaper alternative to purchasing a HD-DVR.

 

[SPM]

... but your assesment for other components like the BR drive, and HDMI. Those components won't drop in price rapidly as there won't have been enough of them manufacturered to facilitate that. HDMI is expensive and has been around for a number of years already. BR drives haven't been released yet as we all know. unlike the PS2 where it was the processors and RAM that were the costly part in the begining, DVD drives were on the market for years prior to it's release. I don't see how it's going to come down in price rapidly.

DVD drive prices are about as low as they will get, they won't drop much more. Bluray drives and HDMI is grossly overpriced now because they are new technology - remember how much DVD and CD drives cost intitially compared to now. Look at the margin between CD drives and DVD drives now compared to when DVD drives were first released. Look at how much the cost of floppy drive prices have dropped over the last few years - zip! What you say about HDMI being around for years and that HDMI and Bluray won't be produced in large numbers is total nonsense. It is only now that HDTVs are being marketed seriously, up to now they were techno-geek items with no practical use, because the content wasn't there. HDMI and probably Bluray (or HD-DVD in the unlikely event that HD-DVD wins) will be standard on every single TV set and media player. That is mass production on a grand scale, and that will bring prices down to commodity levels.

They are not in the same boat on price. I think that's been established by many people for a long time.

$100 price difference between the low end PS3 and the high end Xbox 360 (which are more similarly spec'ed) isn't a lot, particularly since you get a lot more for your money with PS3. Remember most Xbox 360s sold are the higher model - the core model is not unpopular, and buyers seem to want to shell out a little more for the higher spec'ed model. Why shouldn't they do the same and get a PS3 core model or a PS3 high spec model? The price differential will also drop as the price of the Bluray drive and HDMI - the two most expensive components drops.

There are lots of people who won't be able to afford either Xbox 360 or PS3 - they will simply go for a PS2 or Wii.

 

[Powderkeg]

Which means that if someone of them can break the model they will possible make much more money,

In order to break the model Nintendo will have to change the lifestyle habits of the women in question. These women simply wouldn't get into gaming at all unless someone else gives it to them for free and sets it all up for them.

So sure, just as soon as Nintendo starts giving away consoles, and comes to peoples homes to setup their network for them, make sure the console is connected and setup properly for them, and sits down with them and explains how everything works then perhaps they can change that model.

But it's not a model where the only question is appeal once it's already setup, it's a model that has to change the way women conduct their lives. Nintendo has about as much chance of making that change in women as they do convincing my wife to mow the law and wash the cars from now on.

 

[fearsomepirate]

For you maybe it is, not for me. I spent roughly $600 for my 360, I spend more then $300 on graphics cards, I have already spent another $600 on games for my 360. $600 isn't expensive at all for me, and I certainly am not 'rich'. If there are 10 million users who will pay $600 for a PS3 then that is a very good price point for Sony to have.

That's one down, 9,999,999 left to go! What you're ignoring is that not everyone sees a video game system as the best use of their $700 (assuming they buy games, too). For most people, it's not a matter of "Do I have $700?" It's a matter of "Is there anything better I would rather put $700 into?" For many people, season tickets, jewelry, investments, motor vehicles, education, home improvement, and travel are vastly more important than video games, as shocking as this may sound. Take me for example. Whenever I have anywhere near that much money I can spare, I'm not buying a Playstation. I'm not buying an SLI setup for my PC. I'm not getting the latest video card. I'd like to go to Spain. I'd like to buy a ring for a girl. I'd like to pay off my college loans. I'd like a new car. I'd like to get my hands on some reprints of dusty medieval tomes. The PS3 is in the price range where buying one would seriously affect my ability to do those things, which are vastly more important to me than playing Solid Snake's latest adventure or watching movies in high resolution. And I have no doubt that there are many other people who like video games as much as I do and yet feel the same way.

Also, look at the attach rate of consoles. The gamer with a pile of 30+ games is not the norm.

 

[pc999]

Since when a woman does have dificult to find a man to do such things for free?

Anyway there is more ways to brake the model, making it a usefull thing, once you add style+opera+DVDs+educational SW (LiMuBai also said this)+very easy of use+domains... you have much more reasons to a no gamer buy this than one of the others.

For us Wii will be only a console with nice features but for others it will be some kind of all-in-one machine.

On the other side you have much more tech on the PS3 but that does not give the the same value impression to most people and this alone would make PS3 loss market share, if the others can expand the market (even if Sony sell 100M+).

 

[Tap In]

..., another analyst has come out saying he sees things staying much the same as they are now in terms of ordering of the competitors. (...

same order maybe, yet he sounds very doubtful it will be anywhere near the same percentages.

I'm still saying Sony will win the WW market numbers this gen, even with the reasons why they may not (that Acert pointed out above), it will just be a hell of a lot closer this gen.

 

[Hardknock]

I think this will be the most exciting generation yet. My predictions are the Wii will take Japan by storm with PS3 following closely behind. The 360 leading in NA by a small margin with PS3 in second and Wii a close 3rd. Europe I think PS3 will have a large lead with 360 second and Wii third again.

The PS3 will be strong in every territory, but overall the sales will be very close. I feel PS3 will have 40% market share with 360 35% and Wii claiming 25%. Which is a far different scenario from what we've had the past 10 years. I would be absolutely shocked if PS3 goes to last place next-gen. I just don't think it's possible yet.

 

[Powderkeg]

Since when a woman does have dificult to find a man to do such things for free?

Since when do women ask for, much less buy game consoles for themselves? How many women do you know personally that have bought a gaming system for themselves? I don't know a single one.



And I think you are overlooking a very basic truth here. People who aren't interested in spending a lot of time, money, and energy in video gaming simply aren't interested in video gaming. You can try to wrap your video game up in whatever package you want, but in the end you still run into the fundamental problem that if they aren't interested, they aren't interested.

Do you know what a non-gamer does as they walk by a demo kiosk in a store? They typically do one of two things. They either walk right by without even glancing at it or they glance up at the screen to see what the game looks like, and then keep walking. In the first case nothing you do or say about the system will change their mind, in the second, it's what's on-screen that will either grab their attention or turn them off. They don't look at the console or the controller, they don't compare features, they don't care enough about gaming to bother. The game graphics have to be impressive enough all by itself to make them stop and think "wow, I've got to have that" or they walk off and don't buy anything.

And when they look at those screens and the Wii screen has noticably worse graphics than the others what makes you think those non-gamers will be attracted to what they see on the Wii screen?

 

[Rolf N]

("better tech" sells consoles)

Really?

So you are saying it's unlikely that I would find any PS2 owners who think their system is more powerful than a Gamecube, right? And the Xbox outsold the PS2 because people know which has the better tech, and make their console choices based on which has better tech inside, right?

Hmmmm ...
The belief of "better tech" was IMO pretty much the only somewhat sensible reason to purchase an XBox at all, at least for a good number of months after the launch.
You would have been a ... strange person to even consider buying one, if it weren't for the "better tech", frankly.

And I actually remember that "better tech" was the one key message the marketing gazettes splurted about the machine. Anyone remember the tabular comparisons where the XBox was the only machine that had a proper entry in the "pixel shader version" row? I do.
*shrugs*

So are you saying that having the "better tech" doesn't do much for console sales? Because I'm saying that it must work because it got the XBox a non-zero market share last gen.

 

[Hardknock]

("better tech" sells consoles)You got it backwards. The belief of "better tech" was pretty much the only somewhat sensible reason to purchase an XBox at all, at least for a good number of months after the launch.
You would have been a ... strange person to even consider buying one, if it weren't for the "better tech", frankly.

And I actually remember that "better tech" was the one key message the marketing gazettes splurted about the machine. Anyone remember the tabular comparisons where the XBox was the only machine that had a proper entry in the "pixel shader version" row? I do.
*shrugs*

So you're saying having the "better tech" doesn't do much for console sales, and I'm saying that it must work because it got the XBox a non-zero market share last gen.

Halo was available from day 1.

 

[Rolf N]

Halo was available from day 1.

My doctor advised against me talking about Halo

 

[Robert.L]

My doctor advised against me talking about Halo

Was your doctors last name by any chance kutaragi ?

 

[Ooh-videogames]

Since when do women ask for, much less buy game consoles for themselves? How many women do you know personally that have bought a gaming system for themselves? I don't know a single one.



And I think you are overlooking a very basic truth here. People who aren't interested in spending a lot of time, money, and energy in video gaming simply aren't interested in video gaming. You can try to wrap your video game up in whatever package you want, but in the end you still run into the fundamental problem that if they aren't interested, they aren't interested.

Do you know what a non-gamer does as they walk by a demo kiosk in a store? They typically do one of two things. They either walk right by without even glancing at it or they glance up at the screen to see what the game looks like, and then keep walking. In the first case nothing you do or say about the system will change their mind, in the second, it's what's on-screen that will either grab their attention or turn them off. They don't look at the console or the controller, they don't compare features, they don't care enough about gaming to bother. The game graphics have to be impressive enough all by itself to make them stop and think "wow, I've got to have that" or they walk off and don't buy anything.

And when they look at those screens and the Wii screen has noticably worse graphics than the others what makes you think those non-gamers will be attracted to what they see on the Wii screen?

It is not visuals, but software. The content is the motivator, Brain Age Wii, Cooking game Wii, and Trauma Center. Games like those are whats going to attract non-gamers, the list goes on. A series like the Sims, could get bigger on Wii, the wiimote may prove to be instumental in leaping the hurdle that the standard controller brings. It could be a game teaching you how to right in japanese or chinese.

You give them something to care about, Nintendo isn't going to present Metroid to non-gamers with the wiimote and assume they'll jump just because the controller resembles the remote to their TV.

Just pointing out one variable, just doesn't cut it. You may be able to get a non-gamer to say wow, with graphics. It just won't get them to pick up a controller, content, gameplay will. The standard controller kills wow. Sony has Brain games being developed and on placed on store shelves today, which can obviously present pleasing visual presentation, but its lacking without the functionality of the DS.

 

[pc999]

It is not visuals, but software. The content is the motivator, Brain Age Wii, Cooking game Wii, and Trauma Center. Games like those are whats going to attract non-gamers, the list goes on. A series like the Sims, could get bigger on Wii, the wiimote may prove to be instumental in leaping the hurdle that the standard controller brings. It could be a game teaching you how to right in japanese or chinese.

You give them something to care about, Nintendo isn't going to present Metroid to non-gamers with the wiimote and assume they'll jump just because the controller resembles the remote to their TV.

Just pointing out one variable, just doesn't cut it. You may be able to get a non-gamer to say wow, with graphics. It just won't get them to pick up a controller, content, gameplay will. The standard controller kills wow. Sony has Brain games being developed and on placed on store shelves today, which can obviously present pleasing visual presentation, but its lacking without the functionality of the DS.

Exactely, they will not present it as a console but as all-in-one that it is some inexpensive entertainment thing too that can indeed help you (educational stuff) simplify others (Opera)etc...

That is something that PS3 (probably XB360 too) cant do.

The perception of value/tech it is much more important.

The game graphics have to be impressive enough all by itself to make them stop and think "wow, I've got to have that" or they walk off and don't buy anything.

And when they look at those screens and the Wii screen has noticably worse graphics than the others what makes you think those non-gamers will be attracted to what they see on the Wii screen?

Actually I already saw some people that almost cant answer which one is better GR2 or GRAW, they simple does have a diferent way to look at games, they dont search for photo-realistic gfx (like people when buy a CD dont care if the musicians are good or no).

And I think you are overlooking a very basic truth here. People who aren't interested in spending a lot of time, money, and energy in video gaming simply aren't interested in video gaming.

There are very few people that I know that dont like playing at all, that wouldnt spend much or in this kind (last gen like) of games then I know a lot of people, but they play sometimes.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Since when a woman does have dificult to find a man to do such things for free?

Doesn't this belief run counter to the findings of the study?

I'm not sure if they asked if people were married/unmarried, but they did state that 70% were women, and that they spent most of their gaming time at night (would indicate non-married, non-nookie), and that a large percentage didn't have any children.

So we've got women who play cheap games (both to design and purchase), that are easily available with the hardware they already own, who do the majority of their gaming at night, and who don't have children.

This really doesn't seem like some great untapped market that is going to be relevant in any way to who is the market leader in the next gen console sales.

Oh.. and my girlfriend works for SBC, in an environment that is 99% female, and about 95% of them are butt ugly/extremely over weight, and couldn't find a man willing to do anything for them for free... even if you count sexual favors as free.

The belief that there's a man for every woman might be true, but that doesn't mean the woman isn't in California and the man isn't in Zimbobwea.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Actually I already saw some people that almost cant answer which one is better GR2 or GRAW, they simple does have a diferent way to look at games, they dont search for photo-realistic gfx (like people when buy a CD dont care if the musicians are good or no).

I'd say it's more like the people who buy jazz albums off the shelf by the latest/most popular artist of the genre, instead of buying the digitally remastered, live recording by Sheffield recording. They either can't tell the difference, don't have the equipment to be able to tell the difference, or both.

 

[Rolf N]

Was your doctors last name by any chance kutaragi ?

I'll bite.
I don't think people bought a 360 at launch to play PGR3. Or Geometry Wars. They bought it for The Possibilites(TM). But then, for a long while, there was just nothing else to do besides PGR3 and Geometry Wars. Both were very replayable, PGR3 because of its solid online play (PDZ apparently not that popular) and GW for the high-score hunt.

A remotely similar case can be made for Windows 95 and Solitaire (or Minesweeper). You don't play these games because they're so super-duper fantastic. You play them because there's nothing else you can be bothered to do.

And now let's briefly mention Halo on the XBox. See a similarity?

Okay, this probably sounded pretty harsh and I'm fully aware that the H word is considered sacred by some. And I'm definitely not saying these games are garbage, I'm just saying they are very overrated, but understandably so, because of their unique positioning (solid game with high replayability in the midst of an endless void). We could agree that those are significant games, but that alone doesn't make them great games.