European Console Sales (2009 Edition)

[catisfit]

Even dated this numbers are new in the way that they were not public till some journalists dare to investigate.

They were released in mid-January. I just found a thread on NeoGAF from Jan 16th discussing them, with links to MCVUK. I find it hard to accept the same figures reported as news in mid-April

I had always assumed that PS3 was selling in greater numbers in Europe. But according to this for Europe combined the X360 is leading PS3 by about 1 million units.

So I'm guessing that MS's holiday push was successful and it erased and reversed PS3's lead in Europe.

Or was I always wrong in my assumption that PS3 had a healthy lead in Europe?

You were right that the PS3 sells in greater numbers in Europe, but wrong about the lead - the PS3 has only been on the market in Europe for 25 months compared to the 360's 41 months.

Microsoft managed a phenomenal turnaround in 2008. To use the UK as an example as I have numbers for it, in March the 360 required a price cut simply to match the PS3 sales rate (GfK-ChartTrack said the price cut doubled the 360 sales rate, but the PS3 still beat it in the four weeks post-price cut). It is against this background that many of the 2008 PS3 predictions were made by Sony and third parties, nobody really expected that Microsoft would cut £70-80 off the 360 in two price cuts in 6 months.

However, it was the September price cut and huge advertising campaign which was really successful in driving 360 sales forward - Oct-Dec sales were 900,000 for 360 against 500,000 for PS3.

But even after that performance, the average sales rates per month since launch were practically identical; the PS3 lead by 87.8k against 85.3k per month, to the last figures we have.

However, these are all UK numbers, which is the only European country where the 360 holds a sizable install base lead (1.3m) over the PS3. The sales rate is much more favourable to the PS3 across Europe. Unfortunately numbers are very hard to come by, but using the GAME report as a source, the cumulative average sales rate for PS3 across France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic and Australia is 114.7k per month, against 59.6k per month for the 360.

 

[liolio]

They were released in mid-January. I just found a thread on NeoGAF from Jan 16th discussing them, with links to MCVUK. I find it hard to accept the same figures reported as news in mid-April

I don't have an account on GAF neither I read this forum, for me the "news" was new.
But I agree with you, if the figures was available on GAF (which looks like an impressive sources of leaks/hints/etc.) that says a lot about videogaming websites, really (sorry for copy/pasting your comment but I couldn't find a better way to put it ).

 

[Zassk]

I had always assumed that PS3 was selling in greater numbers in Europe. But according to this for Europe combined the X360 is leading PS3 by about 1 million units.

The X360 sales are way up in Europe, both compared to last generation and also compared to previous years of this gen. However, this phenomenal growth has just allowed the X360 to match or slightly beat the PS3 overall, which speaks to the strength of the Sony brand in that market.

As to which console is ahead, that seems to depend on which countries one counts - - e.g. the top 5 EU markets, or include/exclude Eastern Europe, or EMEA or PAL land, etc. Regardless, it does seem that Europe has been MS's biggest growth region, which matches one of its stated goals for this gen.

 

[Rangers]

Nintendo! Has their always fun Europe console sales stuff up from their financials

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/090508/index.html

A lot of good charts in there..but for Europe sales:

I believe somebody at GAF worked out the pixels to be this:

Week    X360      PS3       Wii
 
CW 1   146.608  130.781   258.230 
CW 2    79.968   81.634   146.608 
CW 3    59.976   53.312   126.616 
CW 4    47.481   47.481   115.787 
CW 5    47.481   47.481   115.787 
CW 6    42.483   39.984    89.964 
CW 7    40.817   34.986    99.127 
CW 8    39.984   31.654    86.632 
CW 9    44.149   40.817    87.465 
CW 10   47.481   42.483    75.803 
CW 11   52.479   40.817    74.970 
CW 12   39.151   30.821    58.310 
CW 13   45.815   39.151    69.972 
CW 14   44.149   34.986    69.972 
CW 15   43.316   32.487    88.298 
CW 16   36.652   29.155    79.135 
CW 17   30.821   25.823    65.807 
 
Total  888.811  783.85  1.708.483

 

[DrJay24]

So at half the price the 360 is up 13% over the PS3 (this year) in Europe?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So at half the price the 360 is up 13% over the PS3 (this year) in Europe?

Pretty much, but that's a huge improvement over the 2008 numbers from the chart where the X360 was getting spanked by the PS3. Except for CW11 and CW12 where the X360 was at least somewhat close to PS3 in 2008.

So PS3 still has a good chance to beat out X360 in Europe. A price cut I'm sure would do wonders.

Regards,
SB

 

[Zassk]

So at half the price the 360 is up 13% over the PS3 (this year) in Europe?

Yup, and to put it in context, it's up hugely compared to past years & last generation.

 

[neliz]

Sony issued a statement that no PS3 pricecut would be announced for this E3 period.

So that would put a new price structure in place around the back to school period.

 

[Nesh]

Yup, and to put it in context, it's up hugely compared to past years & last generation.

Not that much considering that the Playstation platform sells less than it used to compared to last generation. At a much more expensive price too,

 

[Brad Grenz]

Sony issued a statement that no PS3 pricecut would be announced for this E3 period.

Sure, but that's Sony's SOP up to the very instant they officially announce a price cut and has been for a long time. You deny until you are ready to make the new price effective. So boilerplate statements like that are perfectly useless in predicting their timetable.

 

[StefanS]

Not that much considering that the Playstation platform sells less than it used to compared to last generation. At a much more expensive price too,

The price point has no relevancy for current sales, IMHO, unless MS has to take huge losses in response to their lower price point (which it doesn't). Moreover, this subsidizing would only be relevant when talking about profit.

Of course, you could argue that the PS3 would see significantly increased sales in the future after price drops. However, that scenario would asume that MS price point remains stagnant and that the image of the X360 in the mind of the average European consumer remains unchangeable. That would be a fallacy. I don't see any of those things as set in stone. MS will react to Sony price drops, and it seems more people in Europe are willing to consider a MS console, if it has enough games and has a good price point.

Now as for the past glory argument, I don't see its usefulness, TBH. As a matter of fact, last generation's sales in Europe didn't see three strong competitors. If one would assume that the PS brand is going to achieve PS2 sales in the face of X260, Wii competition, they are - to put it lightly - ignoring the facts.

The myth that Sony would slash prices and as a result a massive increase PS3 sales would take place is only an entirely static scenario:
A) Consumers are holding off their PS3 purchases until it becomes cheaper. I.e. they are not considering the competition because they want a PS3.
B) The competition has not the means or the intent to react to Sony's strategy.

Both assumptions are unrealistic. Looking at the aggregate console sales of the 3 rivals in Europe, it is hardly the case that consumers are holding off their console purchases just because the PS3 is too expensive. Consumers are buying the competitor's products (resulting in their comparatively better sales), thus increasing their strength in the market and improving their brand recognition. As for the second assumption, I am pretty sure MS and Nintendo can and are willing to react with price cuts, in order to protect their market share.

So, sure, price drops would increase PS3 sales in Europe (no doubt about it), but it would not be anywhere near PS2 levels, due to the competitors' price flexibility (their products are cheaper, especially the Wii has ample of headroom for cutting prices), their increased brand recognition in the mind of the consumer and their (already established) stronger presence in the market.

 

[Nesh]

The price point has no relevancy for current sales, IMHO, unless MS has to take huge losses in response to their lower price point (which it doesn't). Moreover, this subsidizing would only be relevant when talking about profit.

Of course, you could argue that the PS3 would see significantly increased sales in the future after price drops. However, that scenario would asume that MS price point remains stagnant and that the image of the X360 in the mind of the average European consumer remains unchangeable. That would be a fallacy. I don't see any of those things as set in stone. MS will react to Sony price drops, and it seems more people in Europe are willing to consider a MS console, if it has enough games and has a good price point.

Now as for the past glory argument, I don't see its usefulness, TBH. As a matter of fact, last generation's sales in Europe didn't see three strong competitors. If one would assume that the PS brand is going to achieve PS2 sales in the face of X260, Wii competition, they are - to put it lightly - ignoring the facts.

The myth that Sony would slash prices and as a result a massive increase PS3 sales would take place is only an entirely static scenario:
A) Consumers are holding off their PS3 purchases until it becomes cheaper. I.e. they are not considering the competition because they want a PS3.
B) The competition has not the means or the intent to react to Sony's strategy.

Both assumptions are unrealistic. Looking at the aggregate console sales of the 3 rivals in Europe, it is hardly the case that consumers are holding off their console purchases just because the PS3 is too expensive. Consumers are buying the competitor's products (resulting in their comparatively better sales), thus increasing their strength in the market and improving their brand recognition. As for the second assumption, I am pretty sure MS and Nintendo can and are willing to react with price cuts, in order to protect their market share.

So, sure, price drops would increase PS3 sales in Europe (no doubt about it), but it would not be anywhere near PS2 levels, due to the competitors' price flexibility (their products are cheaper, especially the Wii has ample of headroom for cutting prices), their increased brand recognition in the mind of the consumer and their (already established) stronger presence in the market.

Since I am not talking about Sony's ability to reduce price or MS/Sony's profitability but about market's response today to what they see in the market I do not understand how price is not relevant

The consumers respond to price differences and price levels. It is natural.

If we assume that both are offering the same quality and the same features then since consumers are supposed to be rational individuals they d want to maximize their utility by buying the product that offers the same features at lower cost.

Taking into consideration the similarities and differences of each product feature-wise (games, and others) and the price gaps, it shows that the market's response is almost indifferent between the two despite that MS sells at lower the price. Which shows that if we exclude the price difference, with everything else given there is some extra preference in favor of the PS3 in the EU territory.

The price difference seems to be the primary reason that the 360 sells around as much as the PS3 and the price level of the PS3 is the primary reason why Sony sells less.

If Sony can or will someday be able to sell more than the 360 in the future is a different matter. This is not what I was talking about

 

[catisfit]

I like how the width of each line on the graph must be 5k units but the figures have been calculated to the unit

Incidentally I'm surprised that the PS3 '09 numbers are as close as they are to PS3 '08 (excepting the Gran Turismo 5 Prologue effect). It has been £299 for 19 months now, which even in a steady-state economy would suggest a significant YoY decline.

Of course, you could argue that the PS3 would see significantly increased sales in the future after price drops. However, that scenario would asume that MS price point remains stagnant and that the image of the X360 in the mind of the average European consumer remains unchangeable. That would be a fallacy.

I disagree. There is no historical evidence to suggest that a price drop for one console has any bearing on the sales rate of any other console. In fact the opposite is quite readily apparent from the data.

 

[Zassk]

Not that much considering that the Playstation platform sells less than it used to compared to last generation. At a much more expensive price too,

If you're saying that there is greater potential for console sales to competitors due to Sony's under performance, then from the year-over-year growth, we can suppose that MS has picked up some of those "lost Sony sales", and Nintendo has picked up more of them. However, I think your characterization is a little like damning with faint praise. The division of sales in Europe is due to all three companies' efforts; they're not all Sony's sales to be won or lost. You can say MS grew "not that much", but their European growth is really the story of the generation for them. They grew far more in Europe than elsewhere.

 

[mrcorbo]

I disagree. There is no historical evidence to suggest that a price drop for one console has any bearing on the sales rate of any other console. In fact the opposite is quite readily apparent from the data.

That's not really what he was arguing, though. He was pointing out that while the PS3 might benefit from a price cut that there was nothing stopping the 360/Wii from also doing price cuts which could possibly benefit their sales in the same way. The net effect of this would be for the PS3 sales to not get *comparatively* better vs. the sales of the other consoles.

 

[Nesh]

If you're saying that there is greater potential for console sales to competitors due to Sony's under performance, then from the year-over-year growth, we can suppose that MS has picked up some of those "lost Sony sales", and Nintendo has picked up more of them. However, I think your characterization is a little like damning with faint praise. The division of sales in Europe is due to all three companies' efforts; they're not all Sony's sales to be won or lost. You can say MS grew "not that much", but their European growth is really the story of the generation for them. They grew far more in Europe than elsewhere.

Nobody implied that its just Sony's sales to be won or lost. The growth is partially due to the companies' efforts and partially to what the other competitor do. Wii differentiated itself to approach a previously untouched market on top of the already touched market. MS efforts also played their part, but Sony's moves left marketshare available for MS to take. And yet with strong features and at half the price (all a result of MS's efforts) it sells around as much as the more expensive PS3 that has very similar features and experience. This is how the market responds to MS's efforts.

 

[catisfit]

That's not really what he was arguing, though. He was pointing out that while the PS3 might benefit from a price cut that there was nothing stopping the 360/Wii from also doing price cuts which could possibly benefit their sales in the same way. The net effect of this would be for the PS3 sales to not get *comparatively* better vs. the sales of the other consoles.

...but the scales of the price cuts required to obtain a similar increase in sales would be wildly different. The 360 price cut in March (20%) created a sales increase of x2.55. The price cut in September (18.75%) only created x1.70. It would be even more inelastic now (a very basic way to demonstrate this is with the question "how many people want to buy product Z but are not prepared to pay the current price?", and re-evaluate this as the price falls).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

That's not really what he was arguing, though. He was pointing out that while the PS3 might benefit from a price cut that there was nothing stopping the 360/Wii from also doing price cuts which could possibly benefit their sales in the same way. The net effect of this would be for the PS3 sales to not get *comparatively* better vs. the sales of the other consoles.

This is incorrect as price elasticity is not constant (it changes with the price) and the consoles are not perfect substitutes for eachother. (which is evident by PS3's sales volume and price).

Even if the PS3 and X360 both dropped the exact same dollar or percentage amount, you have no idea how it would impact sales. Most likely the PS3 would enjoy a higher growth than the X360 as the Ps3 is more expensive (and price elasticity tends to be higher the higher the price of these goods are).

 

[mrcorbo]

...but the scales of the price cuts required to obtain a similar increase in sales would be wildly different. The 360 price cut in March (20%) created a sales increase of x2.55. The price cut in September (18.75%) only created x1.70. It would be even more inelastic now (a very basic way to demonstrate this is with the question "how many people want to buy product Z but are not prepared to pay the current price?", and re-evaluate this as the price falls).

I disagree. I don't think the scale of the price cut is as important as the absolute price point the cut results in. I also think that both the 360 and Wii have the potential at lower price points to become attractive as secondary systems and sell to consumers who may have already bought in to this gen with one of the other systems. I'd be very surprised to see diminishing returns already (especially with the Wii since it hasn't had a price cut yet) in the ability for price cuts to increase sales for either of those two systems.

 

[mrcorbo]

This is incorrect as price elasticity is not constant (it changes with the price) and the consoles are not perfect substitutes for eachother. (which is evident by PS3's sales volume and price).

Even if the PS3 and X360 both dropped the exact same dollar or percentage amount, you have no idea how it would impact sales. Most likely the PS3 would enjoy a higher growth than the X360 as the Ps3 is more expensive (and price elasticity tends to be higher the higher the price of these goods are).

In one statement you're telling me that I am incorrect to say that it's *possible* that concurrent price cuts could similarly impact sales for any or all of the 3 consoles and in the next your saying I have no idea how it would impact sales. So should I infer by this that you are saying that it is *not possible* for the cuts to have a similar effect and that by making this statement that you *do* know how they will impact sales?

Further, you point out how the consoles are not perfect substitutes of one another and then compare the price elasticity of them as if they were.

To be honest, all of this is more of a Devil's Advocate type argument on my part. I just want to challenge some assumptions that I don't consider to be safe ones given all of the variables involved. I really don't have a strong opinion on how various price cuts may effect sales. I have found this gen to be very hard to predict because it hasn't really progressed in the same way that prior gen's have so it's hard to look at the past for precedent. On the plus side, this gen has publicly yielded more data points than any prior one, and I think that we can get a better read on the market's current conditions than ever before.