MS release a few sales numbers
- Thread starter PARANOiA
- Start date
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Did you miss the part where it was told that they overstuffed the market in 06? take those numbers and add them to 07 and you'll see that they didn't sell less...
X360 is doing much better than Xbox1 and if they can keep up that trend in the future generations, they should be doing pretty good in awhile.
They should drop the Arcade to 199 pretty soon though. The price drops haven't been that bad in my country though. Premium launched at 419€ and now the official price is 349€, but you can get them a bit cheaper. Also the Gamestop stores have had pretty interesting campaing in Finland: trade in your PS2 +any five games and get 200€ of the price of X360, that means you can bring in your launch day PS2 and and some crappy 2€ games and get a pretty killer deal... I have heard they don't even check up whether the PS2's are working...
Over stuffing, whatever. If anything that's evidence of Microsoft's failure to move units at the rate they expected and wanted. If the 360 did in fact sell more in 07 than 06, it's not by very much and that's a problem. By this time in it's life the PS2 had sold 40+ million consoles. That's the standard of success we're working on here. Am I the only one who remembers Microsoft's lofty goal of reaching 1 billion gamers by the end of this generation? By any measure they are way off pace right now.
Maybe not, but I doubt any of them think doing only 1/3 of the PS2's business is a win.
quest55720
Regular
For nintendo it would be since they would of sold all those units at a profit. Add in all the first party software they sell they could buy a large country with the profits. The Wii demand has not dropped 1 bit in NA yet. I have seen exactly 2 Wiis in stores since launch I bought 1 of them. I think MS would be very happy selling 40-60 million consoles and selling a ton of software like they are doing now plus xbox arcade and video downloads.
Well, the Wii is on pace to do better than that, so I'm sure Nintendo's quite pleased. I don't think MS would be very pleased with 40 million, though. I think such a figure would put a third Xbox in serious jeopardy.
quest55720
Regular
You have to remember they sold these xboxs at 349 dollars or more. The PS2 PS1 ect sold the majority of the systems at 199 and below. Now if the premium drops to 199 and sales are stagnet then sure we can start to rip. Until then we need to sit back a little and let it unfold some. There is no question now the 360 will turn a profit unlike the xbox which will be enough to warrent another system. Things are much different than last time around for MS. They have gotten almost every big 3rd party title on the system. They retained IP rights so they can shop the chips to different fabs to save money. With no hard drive they will be able to sell the arcade for 129.00 one day for pure profit. The 360 has the library to extend this generation unlike the xbox. The PS2 basically had every major 3rd party game as an exclusive.
This generation has many years left in it. The way things are going no one will want to move on for a while. MS/Sony will want to extend the generation to recoup early losses. Nintendo will want to keep selling hardware at a profit.
How do sales compare with last gen consoles sold? My feeling is that sales are inferior and 2 years into last gen, aggregate sales of hardware were higher than aggregates now. But maybe I'm wrong with Wii lifting them up there? Still, 7 million XB360s and 5 million PS3's or whatever a year is like 12 million units, which doesn't seem a strong market at all. Wasn't the conventional market last gen at a good 20+ million consoles a year at this point? If so, what has happened to those buyers? Are they buying Wii? Or waiting for price drops as HD gaming is too rich for them? If the latter, as my friend pointed out the other day, the price he can get a PS3 for now in the UK is the same as he paid for his PS2 in ~2001.
Sure, but the PS2 still sold like 25 million before the first price cut and that was about a year and a half into the life of the console.
I'm still not getting why people feel the urge to split the market between Wii and PS3/360. Sure, there is probably a good amount of Wiis that will end as Wii Sports/Wii Fit boxes when all is said and done (although people said the same thing with the DS as a Brain Training / Nintendogs machine). But last gen, many PS2 ended as Singstar/Buzz/Guitar Hero machines, with casual gamers picking them up in droves, and, curiously, I never saw anyone trying to separate the "true" gamers from the "casual".
And god forbid that people would actually buy a Wii because they want one. I mean, it's obvious that they only buy Wiis because the "true" HD consoles are too expensive for them, as exemplified by the $500+ Wiis on Ebay during the Christmas shopping season.
1. I do think you should basically just look at the total revenue spent on all consoles, including handhelds, and you'll see that sales are up enormously from 5 years ago.
2. In terms of hi-def, I know a fair number of people who will be buying a PS3 soon, but they still need a HD tv, and combined they can't afford it yet. (Some of them added that if games like GT5 Prologue's European release, or MGS4, etc. make them want it harder, they'll prioritise their financials to get it sooner.
)archangelmorph
Veteran
Firstly I don't think you can factor in handhelds at all considering PSP & DS launched before any of the current home consoles & they both would quantify a massive part of the sales figures considering they're selling in the droves (& why not? they're handhelds)..
However if you look squarely at the performance of Wii, 360 & PS3 LTD sales combined, I'm not sure they'd be higher than those of the Xbox, PS2, GC (& DC?) combined this far into their lifespan..
Does anyone have any actual numbers on this however as i'd be most interested to find out what the reality of the situation is..?
I'm pretty sure some of these were played default from the 3rd perspective.
I don't think so. From what I've gathered most on here are the type that were weened on Commodore64s and the like and then onto PCs. Or at least held their most enthusiasm for PCs over consoles before the x360.
I still believe the FPS genre wouldn't have gotten as big as it did without Microsoft. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
A few people have alleged that MS's Xbox-division is already past the point of losing money and is now making a profit for the first time in its history. Is that true? How would we know if it was?
My (highly inaccurate) estimate is that, even if we assume that MS has broken even on all 17.7 million hardware sales, and made $10 on each of the 7 games that sold to each of the 17.7 million hardware owners, that only just barely offsets the $1 billion charge MS took for extending the 360's RRoD warranty. In other words, it's not obvious to me that they've made any money yet. Does anyone know for sure?
My (highly inaccurate) estimate is that, even if we assume that MS has broken even on all 17.7 million hardware sales, and made $10 on each of the 7 games that sold to each of the 17.7 million hardware owners, that only just barely offsets the $1 billion charge MS took for extending the 360's RRoD warranty. In other words, it's not obvious to me that they've made any money yet. Does anyone know for sure?
While MS took a one billion dollar charge and applied it to last fiscal year as a cost. All they did was basically set aside 1 billion dollars to take care of any warranty issues for the rest of the generation.
That one billion dollars represent past, current and future costs associated with replacements and repairs post implementation of the three year warranty.
When assessing "making money" generally people talk about each quarter where the financials are reported. The $1Bn charge came out of the prior years financials so that has already been accounted for and won't affect ongoing quarters.
Given sales of software on XB360, they ought to be making money by now. If not, they're doing something seriously wrong!
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1110089&postcount=6
We already covered this, but now with a different slant. The N64 sold 33M units and was very strong in the US (where they sold nearly 21M units). Of course FPS are more popular now than in 90s on consoles, but as history shows popular genres either change/evolve or fall to the wayside as newer ones that make better use of modern technology rise to the top.
Anyhow, there were plenty of well known FPS back then, as I said in the other thread: "As for blaming MS for FPS... did you own an N64? We had GoldenEye 007, Perfect Dark, Turok, Turok 2, Doom 64, Quake, Quake II, Duke Nuken 64, South Park, Forsake, Rainbow Six... heck, we even got a version of Daikatana! And then there were all the 3rd person games that were essentially shooters like JFG, Conker's, etc." The PS1 also had a number of shooters (the lack of an anlog stick hindered such though) and the DC had a selection of such as well.
The evolution of user inputs (analog sticks anyone?), more powerful hardware to realize 3D worlds, migration of PC technologies to the console space, and so forth are all factors. Did Microsoft's move into the console world help as well as the success of Halo? Sure.
But your comments and "blame MS for the decline of Japanese flavored games" is as mistaken as the "Halo online" comments. Halo wasn't online (unless you hooked up to a PC and 3rd party software) and FPS success took root long before Halo. Halo did a number of things right in "one package". It nailed the control schematics, slowed down the pace, added the rebounding health, added functional and meaningful vehicle combat, tossed in insta-nades and melee, had a robust MP model with a wide variety of modes and modifiers, and so forth.
But the FPS genre certainly took hold on the N64. Over 5M GoldenEye 007 copies in the US aline accentuates this point. The controller worked well for moving in 3D worlds and it had the proper hardware (unlike previous generations) to generate 3D worlds. Oddly, it is EA and Sports franchises that, in the US, that have taken up the most ground from Japanese flavored titles. Anyhow, as hardware moved from 2D focused designs to 3D the upsurge of First Person games was inevitable--apart from any influence from Microsoft. First person just makes sense as a way to communicate a 3D world to a user and offer a stable perspective for the user to offer input into the 3D world. The limitations a first person view presents (a lot of interactive challenges) actually works well at this point in console design because of the relatively low interactivity of these worlds and the limitations of user input devices.
Put another way, going back to the mid-1990s 3rd person made less sense for many games. Beyond the aiming issue, you always had a character on screen you had to properly animate. You also had some basic design issues. In many early First person games if you came to a low wall you could barely peak over or window you stopped. Typically you saw it as a barrier and moved around it. In third person it is more striking... hello? Step over the wall, crawl in the window... JUMP! This issue was, even today, is common in First person games. You get to a wall or barrier you should be able to traverse but you cannot due to input limitations.
At this point in time first person makes a lot of sense (or by extension a 3rd person shooter which uses the same core mechanics, just different camera offset). Shooting has been a very popular part of videogames since their birth, so merger of "First Person" gaming with "Shooters" was matter of time.
And if I had to blame any one company, I would blame id Software.
The Doom craze was insane. People thought it looked "almost real". This is laughable... but when you consider the context of most gamers never seeing a 3D game and being plunged into the abyss of Hell that was Doom, it was extremely immersive--and effective. The success of Doom (first person, coop, 4 player DM insanity) carried over to Quake and Quake II, which had a huge impact on the technology sector. Notably... GPUs (aka 3D accelerators). Quake was the seed by which 3D accelleration took hold in the PC arena and, eventually, made 3D technology a basic component of the marketplace. The widespread adoption and commercialization of 3D technology, both software and hardware, owe significant homage to Doom/id Software. They weren't the first (nor maybe even the best 3D technology of the time!) but their success, and the aftermath, are significant. And surely many others are deserving of much credit, but the success of id Software's titles, and the subsequent impact they had on 3D accelerators making a foothold in the market, is difficult to overstate.
Within a short number of years Doom, as well as other FPS, we brought over to consoles (even the SNES!) and they have grown in popularity as a genre ever since.
Why are they out of the question?
They have had the 360 on the market for over 2 years now and have dropped a whopping $50. The CPU is already on the 65nm node, the GPU will get there in 2008. The CPU will actually be migrating to 45nm according to Digitimes in very early 2009. Memory costs have dropped substantially and, as times does, general design revisions also lower the cost of goods.
I think the lack of price cuts is directly related to the point you make: Microsoft's strong software lineup for 2007. As middling as 360 hardware sales are when compared to the Wii, even I have to relent and note MS has improved their position... but most importantly MS is making a killing on software. MS had already delayed "profitable" status for the Xbox division to this year, so they were under pressure to return profits now, not later. With the success of Halo 3, Mass Effect, Forza Motorsport 2, and general 3rd party health on the platform FY profits are certain.
Now, I think the tradeoff was a poor one, long term. I think Microsoft had a lot to gain by going very aggressive at H2 2007 with a solid pricecut. $229 Core/$299 Pro in 2007 would have been more competitive all around. Yet looking at the 2007 picture you see how MS moved a lot of units. They moved a lot more in H2 2007 than they did in H2 2006. Lets compare:
Month --- 2006 --- 2007
Jul --- 206k --- 170k
Aug --- 205k --- 277k
Sep --- 259k --- 528k
Oct --- 218k --- 404k
Nov --- 511k --- 770k
Total --- 1399k --- 2149k
54% sales growth isn't bad and sets MS on pace beyond the Xbox. Yes, this isn't PS2 or Wii territory. But it also isn't PS3/GCN/Dreamcast territory, either. And this hardware sales growth comes in the face of the PS3 price drop ($50 difference now) as well as the insane Wii popularity.
So Microsoft essentially takes a "pass" at a real price drop, sees two new competitors enter the market (one wildly popular with historic sales rates), and is able to muster an increase in sales growth in the prime period of the year. I would blame the software for this performance in spite of the pricing situation as well as console competition. "It wasn't enough" in your book is "strong software bulled through the hurdles" in mine.
But one thing, if any, is really clear: Microsoft is in a strong position to do an aggressive price cut. I think hardcore gamers often forget how expensive these consoles are right now. I never paid more than $199 for any of my previous consoles.
I agree here. They ain't gonna reach 1 billion consumers at this pace
If there is a silver lining for the 360, it is definately software sales. They are a class of their own right now. This is important to 3rd parties and mutes the less than spectacular hardware sales (from a market leadership point of view). It is quite surprising, at first glance, to see the 360 conceed market install base leadership but still have a firm grasp on software sales. If you asked MS or Sony which would they prefer to conceed, software or hardware leadership, they wouldn't bat an eye before they answered.
40M units and strong software sales?
If Sony's PS2 could have retained the majority of "high software consumers" but weeded out the host of "buy a console + game and never touch it again" consumers they could have made even more money. Right now Microsoft, with a core base of hungry game consumers, wouldn't be harmed much if they didn't grab too much dead weight. It would propel the attach rate and minimize hardware losses on consumers who don't pull their own through software purchases (royalties), perephrials, and services.
I would liken it to the "5% of people hold 95% of wealth" (or whatever the mistaken statistic is). A smaller percentage of consumer buy the bulk of software. For example the median B3D forumite bought over 26 titles last generation on their primary console alone...
In their first full 12 months (Nov 2001 - Oct 2002) of the PS2/Xbox/GCN all being on the market at the same time they sold:
PS2: 7,280k
Xbox: 3,090k
GCN: 2,450k
Total: 12,820k
From Nov 2006 - October 2007:
PS3: 2,206k
360: 4,268k
Wii: 4,946k
Total: 11,450k
You asked a lot of questions, but it seems total hardware moved in the first 12 months of "market competition" is within 10% of last generation. When looked at from a "money spent" perspective it swings drastically the other way, though, as the PS2 and Xbox dropped from $299 to $199 in this timewindow (which spurned on sales) and the GCN was $199. Constrast with a $249 Wii, $279-$450 360, and $399-$599 PS3.
So total console sales are slightly down from a "similar" window, but total consumer spending on console hardware is up considerably.
Of course there are some differences, hence "similar". Notably: The PS2 was on the market for nearly 18 months WW (12 months NA), the 360 was on the market for 12 months earlier, different hardware constraint issues (notably the continued Wii supply/demand issues), the May 2002 price drop to $199 by Sony/MS, and so forth. But with the limited sales data (we don't have complete 2007 numbers) and the differences in product launches I thought this window would give us a rough snapshot.
Similar threads
