vgchartz, roughly 1.6million compared to 0.8 million
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=33505
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=33502
EA financials - third loss-making year in a row
- Thread starter FAIL
- Start date
vgchartz, roughly 1.6million compared to 0.8 million
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=33505
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/game.php?id=33502
corduroygt
Banned
Which really means both could be anywhere between 500k to 2M.
http://investor.ea.com/common/downl...-13f1-4bce-9203-cb7d8d2ce916&filename=Wedbush Presentation 3.10.10.pdf
This is a EA presentation with a Wedbush outlook of the industry as whole. Has a lot of interesting figures.
Currently the current gen is outpacing last gen by 30 million consoles.
For the PS1 only 3% of the US install base of 30 million console bought a PS1 at $299 while 44% bought a PS1 between $79 and $99 and 90% bought the PS1 at $149 or less.
For the PS2 only 19% of the US install base of 45 million console bought a PS2 at $299, 20% bought the PS2 at $199 and 48% bought a PS1 between at $149 or less. Kind of kills the notion that $199 is the magic sales point.
This is a EA presentation with a Wedbush outlook of the industry as whole. Has a lot of interesting figures.
Currently the current gen is outpacing last gen by 30 million consoles.
For the PS1 only 3% of the US install base of 30 million console bought a PS1 at $299 while 44% bought a PS1 between $79 and $99 and 90% bought the PS1 at $149 or less.
For the PS2 only 19% of the US install base of 45 million console bought a PS2 at $299, 20% bought the PS2 at $199 and 48% bought a PS1 between at $149 or less. Kind of kills the notion that $199 is the magic sales point.
The PSP skews the numbers down, though. Dante's Inferno sold nearly 500k first month just in NPD on 360 and PS3. PSP version wasn't even on top 20.
Meh, it seems with time the "acceptable"price point keeps skewing higher. Mainly due to inflation. Quite literally, 299 is the new 199. A candy bar cost 35 cents when I was a kid, now they're nearly $1.
I cant imagine when PS3 will even reach 149, can you? Will be long past it's prime years (which are right now) when (if?) it does. That's the new math.
Thats not inflation, the average rate of inflation in the US is around 3%. Under normal inflation going from 90% buying at $99 and below to 100% buying at $299 and above would have taken around 40 years. The "acceptable" price grew at an exponential rate between the ps1 to the ps3. Basically 3% to 20% to now 100% 4 years into the generation at the $299 price point and above.
Furthermore, historically $199 isn't the magic "acceptable" price we have all come to accept. 90% of PS1 were sold below $149 and the difference between $299 and $199 is just 1% in terms of the total PS2 userbase.
not all of us, Ive been making jokes on these forums for years about the "magical" $199 barrier
Im still waiting to see someone admit the magical $199 is bollux
Sorry another of those I told you so posts, hey I cant help it being nearly always right (Its what I do for a living)
What do you do for a living? Are you one of the guys who are stealing New Zealands future and selling it overseas to the highest bidder?
Are you a corrupt official on a gravy train of kickbacks which you have to keep track of?
But yes. I will admit that $199 mark is bollucks! We'll reach saturation well before the PS3 goes down to that price. Its all relative on what people are prepared to pay. I don't think anyone would say the HD TV magic price is $199 for a 1080P 30" set. Perhaps people appreciate gaming inasmuch as to be willing to pay more for the experience.
The "Magic" of the $200 price point is that the majority of the sales of a console take place at or below this pivotal point. For PS2 this was 81% of their sales. For PS1 it was 97% of their sales. For xb1 it was only on sale for 6 months at $300 so I'm sure their numbers mirror ps2/ps1.
This gen hasn't yet seen what market demand there is for next gen consoles at below $200 levels.
It'll be interesting to see if MS tries to push the lower price point or just snubs the arcade in favor of pushing more Natal units by having them packed in the SKU of every xb360 arcade.
Offering something along the lines of:
XB Elite $300
XB Natal (arcade + natal) $300
XB arcade could very well be hitting $150 this Xmas which I'm sure quite a few people would purchase at this price point where they have ignored it at $200-300.
PS3 at $199 would be especially interesting considering their high starting point. I imagine demand will be considerably higher than current levels.
$200 in 1995 is $278 in 2009. However even then I suspect its mainly a correlation rather than a causation with higher sales. They would have had many many more sales above $200 had they not cut the price as aggressively. Its the same store with the notion that the strongest console generally doesn't win a console generation.
This generation is different. The consoles have spent a longer proportional time above the $200 price point for all consoles and yet sales have outpaced the previous generation in terms of overall sales.
Its hard to say, however given the slim rumours and expected costing of Natal at roughly $50 they could simply add Natal to the current lineup and keep the prices static. There are many different possibilities unfortunately.
By the time the PS3 is at $199 we could see a next generation console out the door from Nintendo or Microsoft. The price cuts from here on out will be significantly harder to achieve given the desire to pay back their massive liabilities in part due to the excesses of this generation and the fact that they have the highest fixed cost of any current generation consoles given the additional complexity of their console, and the higher base feature set.
Inflation does apply to purchasing power. This generation has significantly more expensive console accessories and yet the base price doesn't have to account for $20-30 of mandatory memory cards which does make the effective price a lot more similar in cost than the raw dollar values suggest.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Inflation does affect things. It's just that in general cost reductions in manufacturing offset that. But similar things at similar points in their lifespan costs similar amounts including inflation.
Compare VHS players to DVD players to BRD players at launch. CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, BRD-ROM drives, then burners. Each generation of consoles at launch, etc. You'll see each at similar price points + inflation with some variation.
That variation will usually, althought not always, trend towards higher prices than previous gen + inflation. And then as the generation goes on (if it goes on long enough) economies of scale, improved manufacturing efficiencies, cost reductions, etc. allow the price to fall from early adopter to mass consumer.
Regards,
SB
How can they possibly run at a loss, with three main consoles and two very successful handhelds to publish games on, which added up equals hundreds of millions of gamers as potential userbase...
Yes that is a rhetorical question, but still...
Yes that is a rhetorical question, but still...
Every Gen is different. However, I'm also sure that every gen videogames are getting more and more popular. Look at ps1 sales vs ps2. Videogaming is becoming a more accepted form of entertainment. Especially as gamers grow up to be parents and their kids come of age to buy consoles in addition to their parents.
I still say ps3 and xb sales will dramatically take off after hitting sub $200.
How can they possibly run at a loss, with three main consoles and two very successful handhelds to publish games on, which added up equals hundreds of millions of gamers as potential userbase...
Yes that is a rhetorical question, but still...
Except that one of the main consoles, in fact the mainest of them all, is not selling 3rd party games as well as expected (expected == PS2), and the two handhelds are clusterfucks of piracy.
Oh. Sorry. Was that too offsensive?
I meant: EA's crappy unoriginal sequels didn't find much success on the Wii, and EA's couldn't find a way to sell their crappy unoriginal sequels on the portable consoles.
How can they possibly run at a loss, with three main consoles and two very successful handhelds to publish games on, which added up equals hundreds of millions of gamers as potential userbase...
Yes that is a rhetorical question, but still...
It's actually really easy.
Spend too much on the games, and don't sell enough to offset the cost.
Development in house at EA, has a huge cost overhead, there is a high sales expectation for all titles, and a development expenditure that is proportional to sales projections. In previous cycles a few top sellers could offset the under performers, not so much this time.
I was talking to a friend about this last week, the games industry as a whole is having a hard time at the moment.
