NPD December 2008
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
The best comment I've heard about this was from GAF, I'll paraphrase:
'The PS3 is this generation's gamecube in the same way that the Wii is this generation's PS2. That is, it's not, but some people really wish otherwise.'
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
THough the GC failed in sales, atleast Nintendo earned a buck or two on it. Is sony already making a profit on ps3 business?
Other than that, I dont think the ps3 is the nxt gc. It already sold like 20 million right? So it will sell alot more and there are more games too. Well, 3rd party atleast. Maybe you could say that the GC didnt have any real MP games but the good games you got could mostly only be played on GC but sony is working on their own IP too. Too bad Ps3 owners dont seem to appriciate them very much given sales of games like LBP, something which probably sold beyond a boatloads if it came out on Wii.
zoekimball
Banned
Sony makes about a $50 loss on each machine but I don't really think they give a crap. If they did they wouldn't have allowed the PS3 to manifest itself in the shape and form that it is today. Sony is in this for the next ten years with the PS3; just like the PS2. The only difference is that the stakes are a bit higher and the investment a bit more. People don't seem to realize that.
The PS2 didn't have the greatest lineup of all time until after the heavy hitters had all arrived, namely MGS, FF, GT and GoW. Three of those are still exclusive.
And don't forget the Atlus crowd. The next "grindan" JRPG's are in the making and sure to have an audience exclusively on the PS3, because these are made with the Japanese market in mind.
The PS2 didn't have the greatest lineup of all time until after the heavy hitters had all arrived, namely MGS, FF, GT and GoW. Three of those are still exclusive.
And don't forget the Atlus crowd. The next "grindan" JRPG's are in the making and sure to have an audience exclusively on the PS3, because these are made with the Japanese market in mind.
I can assure you, Sony does "give a crap" that they lose $50 a unit. They would be one of the most stupid companies in capitalist history if they didn't...
In fact, they care so much how much they're losing that they're not doing a pricecut on the PS3, which as the NPD sales show, it desperately needs.
In fact, they care so much how much they're losing that they're not doing a pricecut on the PS3, which as the NPD sales show, it desperately needs.
zoekimball
Banned
Of course they "care", but they don't care that they make loss for 2-3 years because they have expectations of what they can reek in in the future. If you had any business expertise you would realize that.
if that's true, they are in worse trouble than I thought. They will realize in 2 years that they need a do-over and start next gen by 2012.
This gen is so far removed from the PS2 that any parallels drawn (wrt PS3) are surreal IMO
zoekimball
Banned
How so? Would be nice to hear some valid points...
Their market research predictions indicated in the past that the PS3 will hit the sweetspot as multimedia device for most HDTV households when it is priced at $199 to $249, which they, according to me anyway, have been trying to achieve without making even more loss on every machine sold. When they can afford a low price point like that, they will drop it to that.
The PS2 was always sold at very little profit to Sony, which is why Nintendo made more money last gen with the GameCube than Sony did with PS2.
Their market research predictions indicated in the past that the PS3 will hit the sweetspot as multimedia device for most HDTV households when it is priced at $199 to $249, which they, according to me anyway, have been trying to achieve without making even more loss on every machine sold. When they can afford a low price point like that, they will drop it to that.
The PS2 was always sold at very little profit to Sony, which is why Nintendo made more money last gen with the GameCube than Sony did with PS2.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sound_Card
Regular
Wait, they made less money than Nintendo with the PS2 than the GC? I hope I'm misunderstanding. In all honesty, I seriously doubt they want to be pushed out in a position similar to Xbox or GC. I also doubt they are in this for the next 10 years with the PS3. They are going to ride on it and do the best they can to minimize losses, but they are certainly not for 10 years. PS3 =! PS2 in every way. I fully expect a PS4 in 3 years, and a PS3 with considerably less shelf life than the PS2.
I very much understand the Gilette model, thanks.
I'm also not sure -- and I am sure they know -- that to make money in the future to offset their incredible losses in the first few years, they need the marketshare to do it. The PS3 isn't going to do that for them. MS was in a similar situation last gen, and they recognized that and instead of trying to push the Xbox(1) for years more, they hurried the next generation along where they made up for their mistakes and cut their losses on the hardware. Sony took a step backwards here.
The reason is very simple: game console marketshare is a beast of momentum. MS understood this with the 360, Sony dropped the ball on it.
The PS3 has no momentum and it has no real niche market to tap here. It's kind of a directionless platform at the moment, and consumers are largely not buying into it. They need a gamechanger to break the momentum, just like MS did with the Xbox(1).
As it is now, the Wii will dominate the casual crowd, the 360 will dominate the "core gamers", and the PS3 seems to dominate a small niche of Playstation loyalists and the odd person who buys it as a bluray player and may occasionally buy a game. And the latter -- that market is shrinking as the standalone players get cheaper and more capable.
I sincerely hope Sony isn't buying into many of the illusions you are, that the Playstation will become the magical multimedia device when its price hits $199 (which will be a long time coming, at which point they'll fall farther behind). By the time it hits $199, bluray boxes will be even cheaper and other devices will be in the living room with DLNA compliancy for media streaming locally -- Rogers, the largest cable provider in Canada, is set to roll out a new set-top box which has DLNA for instance.
And the games-side of the console is a matter of momentum. Where there is marketshare, there are game developers. Where there are game developers, there are more games. Where there are more games, there are more game buyers... Where there are more game buyers, there are more royalty revenues...
That's a pretty juvenile sentiment, made by someone who has no idea how analogies actually function. An analogy with a valid point of comparison is a valid analogy. There's no such thing as an exhaustive analogy, because analogies are always between two different things, and as such, there by definition have to be differences.
The central point of comparison here is that GC and PS3 are both also-ran consoles with few third-party exclusives and nothing significant to differentiate them from their main competition. That's valid, and I've never seen any real argument to the contrary.
I can't remember the time GC was sold at prices that were much higher than competitors such as $499 or $399.
Sure it is, but that's if you take what you said as the exact definition of 'being a gamecube'. There's also several important points on which they're different, but you're clouding over those because they don't help your argument.
I'd like to point out to the participants of this "discussion" that you should not import arguments from other boards. Plus, whether the PS3 is the GCN of this generation constitutes not exactly a salient discussion. The interesting point would be the sales data itself (and if you want to pursue the angle, if there's precedent), not the "naming business".
EDIT: Wow, first mod action in quite a while so forgive me, if I am a bit rusty.
EDIT: Wow, first mod action in quite a while so forgive me, if I am a bit rusty.
Last edited by a moderator:
(I feel all kinds of icky posting inthe NPD thread, but here goes...)
AFAICS the only likeness of PS3 to GC is that both were third placed (although GC ended the gneeration second). PS3 is outselling GC, and is seeing increasing interest year on year as the rpice drops, whereas GC saw lower sales each year after launch despite price-drops.
And most importantly, PS3 has a cross-platform library which GC didn't - probably the reason why it lacked interest. It isn't about 3rd party exclusives, but availibility of games. GC had very little to offer gamers except what Nintendo released for it. PS3 has the same games and XB360 on the whole, though both with their exclusives. Wii is like PS2 in sales, except it's selling better, but it's unlike PS2 in it's software offerings and how well it serves 3rd parties as a revenue platform. So really, it's like a super-duper GC or SNES, being a popular, profitable box for Nintendo.
There's really no reason to draw comparisons with other generations. We have the numbers for this gen here and now, better than we've ever had. Analogies should only be really used to make a point clearer, associating ideas a person doesn't understand with something they do understand, although we do tend to use them just to make for more intersting conversation.
I disagree. Excluding some technical features, there are games on the PS3 that differentiate it. If I have to accept your idea about the PS3 I ll have to accept that same idea for the 360.
Its price the big problem with the PS3 and not the games
Exactly--The person who makes the analogy defines what the point of comparison is. You're finally getting it!obonicus said:
Shifty, weren't we just talking about how PS3's November/December sales dropped over last year's? How is that "increasing" interest? Dropping Christmas sales are generally not harbingers of good news. PS3 needs more exclusives that people care about. Plus Xbox is rubbing its face in the dirt with Live.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's also something called a false analogy. But I'm pretty sure there was a mod warning not to continue this discussion.
thatdude90210
Regular
You know what should be troubling for Sony? By being 1 or 2 price cuts behind perpetually, they are always eating the seconds. The best meat, early adapters at particular price points - ones that likely buys most games, are always gone. Only 1 game in the top 20 during the busiest shopping time of the year should be troubling.
If I was in charge of Sony, I would go for a do-over. I would rush out a PS4 (PS3.1 with motion control).
