NPD August 2007

[Laa-Yosh]

Compared to 360 last year, PS3 is selling slightly worse in the US, and slightly better in Japan and Europe, so I dont know why you keep on continually posting about how "Sony is teh doomed".

Sony is selling a lot worse actually, it's not just slightly. Look at the numbers: MS has been at 2.4 million after the first ten months, and PS3 is at 1.74, according to NPD. That's a 38% difference, already quite substantial IMHO. It's selling even worse than the first Xbox; and also remember that the 360 has been supply constrained for quite a few months.

But the more important problem is that you have to look at PS3 sales within a context, and that is two competitors continuosly selling far better then them. Thus the gap is increasing, and the difference between monthly sales will keep on getting bigger as the Wii and the X360 drop their prices, and gain better publisher support for their larger installed base.

Sony is not yet doomed, but the chances are increasing with each wasted month. We cannot tell when that certain moment arrives, probably wouldn't be able to tell even years after - but it's getting closer for sure, the way they're doing right now.


Another important point might be that the well-known and highly successful first/second party franchises aren't guaranteed to move hardware as well as they did with the PS2. They've sold a lot of copies precisely because the PS2 has ruled the market, but the customers aren't neccessarily loyal to these games. It might be that a lot of people only bought GT, MGS and FF games just because they've owned a PS2. If it really is the case, then these franchises might also be unable to turn the tide for Sony.

 

[one]

Look at the numbers: MS has been at 2.4 million after the first ten months, and PS3 is at 1.74, according to NPD. That's a 38% difference, already quite substantial IMHO.

There's a nice thing called dollar-based sales, $599 is 34% more expensive than $399.

 

[nelg]

On the other hand, I do have to say Madden sold better on PS3 than I expected. Relative to installed base it sold more than the 360 (897k / 7M < 336k / 2M).

Yes but Madden in a big fish in a small pond of PS3 games. 360 owners and their budgets have a bigger sea to go fishing in.

 

[djskribbles]

doesn't matter... Madden is in a genre/sport with limited games (you either buy Madden or 2k8). if it was another shooter being released in the same month of Halo 3, thats a different story.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There's a nice thing called dollar-based sales, $599 is 34% more expensive than $399.

And what importance does that have here, how does that help Sony?

 

[patsu]

By many, what do you mean, 10%? Certainly not the majority, or BR software sales would be much higher than they currently are.

It is certainly not the majority but it's significant enough. Some studies put it as 20% I think, but these numbers are obtained via estimates and there could be overlaps. e.g., There'd be casuals, gadget people like me who doesn't buy sports game, DMC, GTx or FF (after FF8), but are interested in Cell and other stuff Sony pushed.

I think it's totally accurate to brand people willing to spend $500-600 on a console as 'hardcore', and expletive is probably right on with his theory.

Sure but the PS3 numbers deserve a second look.

 

[iceberg187]

Yes but Madden in a big fish in a small pond of PS3 games. 360 owners and their budgets have a bigger sea to go fishing in.

If he is going to compare, compare it to the 360s first year to the PS3's first year. In that case. Madden 07 on the 360 outsold the PS3 Madden 08 by over 200k units and had the better tie ratio to the console. 360 being over 23% and PS3 being under 20%. In addition to that, 360 owners had room to buy more games as it shows on the chart I made aligning the August from last year and the August from this year

 

[djskribbles]

If he is going to compare, compare it to the 360s first year to the PS3's first year. In that case. Madden 07 on the 360 outsold the PS3 Madden 08 by over 200k units and had the better tie ratio to the console. 360 being over 23% and PS3 being under 20%. In addition to that, 360 owners had room to buy more games as it shows on the chart I made aligning the August from last year and the August from this year

still apples to oranges imho... 360 was launched with no direct competition for a whole year. Madden on 360 was clearly the superior and was the only "next gen" version. PS3 had the 360 version to compete with and was still the superior version.

 

[Paul_G]

Isn't that just proving the point of many of us like Joshua though? That there is significant value in getting to market first? Not only do consumers not have a choice if they want something new, devs get more time to work with the hardware meaning the first platform, even if it's inferior to the later one, makes some of that up deficit.

Those expecting PS3 to do well because PS and PS2 did well need to factor that in. Just how significant to the success of those consoles was getting to market first?

 

[Arwin]

Just wanted to say thanks Joshua, for giving your detailed reply. I will respond soon as obviously I don't quite agree, but won't have the opportunity today (family day). You probably had all that in your head when you wrote the post, but it wasn't there. Also your suggestion that I bring alternative reasons and such is fine, though your numbers are arbitrary. I don't think it is necessary for me to point out weaknesses in an argument, but in this case I can definitely comply. This thing is on my mind as much as anyone. One of the big things in this example is that I"ve been learning from the PSP vs DS experience. It's been very interesting, also in terms of initial differences per region and later changes, effects of new SKUs, certain games, and so on. Will get back to you soon. Where we agree, by the way, is that in the US the 360 has a good position. I think this is for a large part thanks to the Xbox1 doing quite well there already. It will be interesting to see if we can predict how that will pan out.

All in all though, and to jump way ahead of what I"ll write tonight or tomorrow, I'm hoping for all platforms to do really well, because I am convinced that will give us one of the best experiences with consoles ever. And the price of these things will be low enough for many people to afford them eventually anyway.

 

[one]

And what importance does that have here, how does that help Sony?

Why, I didn't post any opinion about if it's important or helps Sony, just FYI Oh Wii and 360 can't get more price drops in their lives than PS3, btw.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Oh Wii and 360 can't get more price drops in their lives than PS3, btw.

What kind of argument is that?

 

[one]

What kind of argument is that?

See Laa-Yosh's older post in this thread.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

There's a nice thing called dollar-based sales, $599 is 34% more expensive than $399.

What math are you using?

The PS3($600) is 50% more expensive than the X360 ($400).

See Laa-Yosh's older post in this thread.

I did see his post, and i don't see what your point is. So what it can have more price cuts if it will stay more expensive to its competitors anyway?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Or XB360 is 66% the price of PS3, which makes PS3 34% more expensive. Not a traditional comparison, I'll agree

 

[betan]

Isn't that just proving the point of many of us like Joshua though? That there is significant value in getting to market first? Not only do consumers not have a choice if they want something new, devs get more time to work with the hardware meaning the first platform, even if it's inferior to the later one, makes some of that up deficit.

Those expecting PS3 to do well because PS and PS2 did well need to factor that in. Just how significant to the success of those consoles was getting to market first?

I'm sure most people would agree it's significant. By itself, however, doesn't guarantee success.

What math are you using?

The PS3($600) is 50% more expensive than the X360 ($400).

Would you still object if he said "360 is 33% cheaper than PS3"? Just curious.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Would you still object if he said "360 is 33% cheaper than PS3"? Just curious.

No. But then again, i expect people to understand basic math and basic english when they make statements.

 

[Rangers]

I dunno if it's been brought up but the second best selling PS3 title was Warhawk at 68.5k and the third best was Lair at ~50k.

Not sure I might have the order reversed but the numbers are right. That's poor.

 

[Acert93]

Arwin, no need to reply to my long posts. I have learned that at times, even if you disagree and have points to present, time can be invested better in other ways. Family day is a great reason And sometimes exchanges can be drawn out into beating dead horses.

I would be more interested in not an exchange back and forth, but if you took that same energy and did an, "Arwin's View of the Industry" where you put your own thoughts and market perceptions down. Not as an exchange lost in the big picture, but more a broader, contextual look, of your position.

Sometimes post exchanges can become incoherent by their nature and break down. A high level view with data you feel relevant would flesh your position out much better than a reply in most situations.

I know sometimes I back off from an exchange, only to recompose myself with a more thoughtful, coherent presentation of ideas that is of more value than a "You Said/I Say... You Said/I Say... You Said/I Say..." forum response. Those exchanges can got very long, and messy once others jump in. It is like a 50 person discussion panel.

I have also found that, sometimes, not responding (even if you think you are right and could spend some time fleshing out details), as long as the other person doesn't take offense builds good will in that they don't feel you always have to have the last word, retread territory, or beat a dead horse into a bloody pulp.

Sometimes time is the best commentary. And in the big picture, you don't have to convice an "opponent" of a position that you are right. As long as you provide valuable information that people can digest and see (page 14 doesn't help!) people will respond accordingly.

Have a fun family day man. It is waaay more important than posting here!

Ps- this is just me... what moves me to thinking more than anything is less conclusions, but information. When exposed to new information that doesn't fit a paradigm or construct I have it makes me re-adjust. As thinkers we tend to drive toward conclusions, but the most valuable content is the raw information. Rarely will you change someone's stance based on a conclusion. Often you can get someone to rethink their approach by offering valuable data.

 

[22psi]

Arwin, no need to reply to my long posts. I have learned that at times, even if you disagree and have points to present, time can be invested better in other ways. Family day is a great reason And sometimes exchanges can be drawn out into beating dead horses.

I would be more interested in not an exchange back and forth, but if you took that same energy and did an, "Arwin's View of the Industry" where you put your own thoughts and market perceptions down. Not as an exchange lost in the big picture, but more a broader, contextual look, of your position.

Sometimes post exchanges can become incoherent by their nature and break down. A high level view with data you feel relevant would flesh your position out much better than a reply in most situations.

I know sometimes I back off from an exchange, only to recompose myself with a more thoughtful, coherent presentation of ideas that is of more value than a "You Said/I Say... You Said/I Say... You Said/I Say..." forum response. Those exchanges can got very long, and messy once others jump in. It is like a 50 person discussion panel.

I have also found that, sometimes, not responding (even if you think you are right and could spend some time fleshing out details), as long as the other person doesn't take offense builds good will in that they don't feel you always have to have the last word, retread territory, or beat a dead horse into a bloody pulp.

Sometimes time is the best commentary. And in the big picture, you don't have to convice an "opponent" of a position that you are right. As long as you provide valuable information that people can digest and see (page 14 doesn't help!) people will respond accordingly.

Have a fun family day man. It is waaay more important than posting here!

Ps- this is just me... what moves me to thinking more than anything is less conclusions, but information. When exposed to new information that doesn't fit a paradigm or construct I have it makes me re-adjust. As thinkers we tend to drive toward conclusions, but the most valuable content is the raw information. Rarely will you change someone's stance based on a conclusion. Often you can get someone to rethink their approach by offering valuable data.

Acert - master of the art of self-deception! you're very out of the box