NPD December 2008

[BadTB25]

Just want to take a brief moment to say congrats to the MWY MK team proving that there is definitely still an audience...

I was thinking about picking this one up.
Would you mind giving a mini-review.

OT:
Other than SFIV, what is the big titles coming out before Mar 09?

It'll be interesting to see, if the sales differential of the 3 now gen systems are maintained. Some anecdotal evidence is I've noticed more PS3s sold than X360s on my Best Buy, Gamestop and CC expeditions lately. Software wise, I still mostly Wii and X360 titles sold at the counters though.

 

[Nesh]

Exactly--The person who makes the analogy defines what the point of comparison is. You're finally getting it!

So what was the point? That the PS3 has nothing to differentiate itself like the GC and thats why it sells lower?

 

[Zassk]

OT:
Other than SFIV, what is the big titles coming out before Mar 09?

Depends where you want to put the cutoff for "big"... here's a partial list:

Sim Animals - Wii - Jan 21
Skate 2 - PS360 - Jan 21
MLB Front Office Manager - PS360 - Jan 26
Afro Samurai - PS360 - Jan 27
FEAR 2 - PS360 - Feb 10
GTA IV Lost and Damned - 360 - Feb 17
Star Ocean 4 - 360 - Feb 24
Dead Rising - Wii - Feb 24
Killzone 2 - PS3 - Feb 27
Halo Wars - 360 - Feb 27

Just off the list:
Resident Evil 5 - PS360 - Mar 5
Mad World - Wii - Mar 10

 

[BadTB25]

I see at least 5 titles I want to pick up on the list. I was hoping my poor wallet would be able to recover from the beating it took over the holidays.

Must haves in my book are RE5, Halo Wars, and KZ2 along with SFIV.
I will probably have to hold off on Fear 2 and SO4 based on the user reviews. Not sure about Afro Samurai.

 

[Geeforcer]

I have been saying it for years - Sony is pricing themselves out of competition. The arrival of <$200 BD 2.0 players will hurt them even more.

 

[Mintmaster]

I disagree. Excluding some technical features, there are games on the PS3 that differentiate it.

Yeah, but the impact of the exclusive games is not as big as last generation.

If I have to accept your idea about the PS3 I ll have to accept that same idea for the 360.

As a platform, that's pretty much exactly what MS wants. If the pros and cons of the 360 and PS3 pretty much wash each other out so that there isn't anything distinguishing them, then mission accomplished.

Now, we have two platforms that are fairly similar, but one costs up to $200 less. For a lot of people, it becomes a no-brainer to go 360. Wii has probably helped the 360 in a few ways also. For one, it makes PS3 look unreasonable in price. For another, it's such an oddball that it's even tougher to make an argument that there's much difference between the HD consoles.

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.

Like I argued before, the $399 PS3 was like a relaunch, and unlike many console launches in the past, there wasn't any supply restrictions to hold back the initial spike. This is also why the first half of 2008 showed launch-like sales for Sony. Thus the fact that this December's sales are lower than last year's doesn't really mean much at all. More relevent is that the sales are not where Sony wants them to be, particularly the 360S3 ratio in recent months.

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.

You're being a bit condescending, don't you think?

You fail to realize that everyone knows this, including MS. MS is probably selling at as much a loss as Sony is, if not more so with the 360 Arcade. The reality is that Sony is in a very tough position. If they bring prices close to those of the 360, they lose a lot more per unit. If they take the same loss as MS, the PS3 costs more. In the future when the PS3 goes down in price, the 360 will be even cheaper.

This is a lifelong handicap that Sony has to deal with, so it doesn't matter how long the generation lasts. If they're lucky, then in a couple years production cost of the PS3 will be within $20 of the 360 Pro, but the Arcade will still be there to appeal to price sensitive users. When MS makes a slim redesign, again the Arcade has a leg up on the PS3 since it won't need a harddrive (but will have a place to attach it).

(I suppose Sony could introduce two PS3 slims with one using a 20GB flash to be thinner, but I'm not sure if that's enough or if it's a good idea.)

 

[Scott_Arm]

Bought a used PS3 from a guy at work today. He said his kids would rather play the Wii. He'd bought it off another guy at work and now he sold it to me.

I'm not going to use it for much. The odd exclusive. For my tastes the exclusives are weak. The only game I'd like to get is LBP, but even that is slightly iffy for me.

And I got a 60gig with hardware BC, which was a big selling point for me. I still haven't played through the God of War games, but I really liked what I played of them. I'll probably borrow those from my brother in preparation for 3.

Edit: I was planning to buy a PS3 for Killzone2, which is one of the reasons I jumped on this deal.

 

[Nesh]

Yeah, but the impact of the exclusive games is not as big as last generation.

I agree, but we arent discussing the impact of exclusives. We are talking about sales. And in particular he mentioned that there is nothing to differentiate it. But it all boils to one thing. Price issue with the PS3. Not a problem with the exclusives.

As a platform, that's pretty much exactly what MS wants. If the pros and cons of the 360 and PS3 pretty much wash each other out so that there isn't anything distinguishing them, then mission accomplished.

Now, we have two platforms that are fairly similar, but one costs up to $200 less. For a lot of people, it becomes a no-brainer to go 360. Wii has probably helped the 360 in a few ways also. For one, it makes PS3 look unreasonable in price. For another, it's such an oddball that it's even tougher to make an argument that there's much difference between the HD consoles.

I agree but I described it from a reverse perspective. Did the 360 sell more than the PS3 because it has what it takes to differentiate itself from the crowd? No. Its a better price. Because of the price difference, the various differentiating factors are overshadowed by affordability. The closer they are though in price the clearer these differentiating factors become in the eyes of the consumer. It is those that somewhat maintain the sales of the PS3 at that level despite the higher price. But since the price difference is large enough it has shifted from the point where people are indifferent between the two and the 360 takes up more potential market share.

 

[djskribbles]

^ Completely agree. That's what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.

 

[expletive]

I agree but I described it from a reverse perspective. Did the 360 sell more than the PS3 because it has what it takes to differentiate itself from the crowd? No. Its a better price. Because of the price difference, the various differentiating factors are overshadowed by affordability. The closer they are though in price the clearer these differentiating factors become in the eyes of the consumer. It is those that somewhat maintain the sales of the PS3 at that level despite the higher price. But since the price difference is large enough it has shifted from the point where people are indifferent between the two and the 360 takes up more potential market share.

Maybe the point Mintmaster is making is that the 360 has been able to level the playing field WHILE costing $200 less (or 100 in case of the pro). Sony has add to generate a perception of value because they can't charge less than they are and MS has been able to counter that with the Live service or netflix, etc.

If we assume for the moment that the PS3 is a 'better' console and worth the price amongst the initiated in here, than it basically amounts to MS nullifying that perception to most of the rest of the world. It sounds like you are making the assumption that people recognize the PS3 IS better but arent buying it because of the price, i'm not sure thats the widely held sentiment. I think there's a good chance people are buying the 360 because its the one they want.

I do wonder if it will be too late by the time Sony closes the gap price-wise. The arcade is already $200 less and will continue down over the next couple of years. Is the consumer driven by the $149, $129, $99 console going to care about anything but plugging it in and playing games?

 

[Nesh]

Maybe the point Mintmaster is making is that the 360 has been able to level the playing field WHILE costing $200 less (or 100 in case of the pro). Sony has add to generate a perception of value because they can't charge less than they are and MS has been able to counter that with the Live service or netflix, etc.

If we assume for the moment that the PS3 is a 'better' console and worth the price amongst the initiated in here, than it basically amounts to MS nullifying that perception to most of the rest of the world. It sounds like you are making the assumption that people recognize the PS3 IS better but arent buying it because of the price, i'm not sure thats the widely held sentiment. I think there's a good chance people are buying the 360 because its the one they want.

I do wonder if it will be too late by the time Sony closes the gap price-wise. The arcade is already $200 less and will continue down over the next couple of years. Is the consumer driven by the $149, $129, $99 console going to care about anything but plugging it in and playing games?

No. We are saying almost the same thing. What I said is that the consumer considers the 360 to be of better value because of the price level.

There are two ways to affect perception and improve the value of the product in the eyes of the consumer. Either add features or reduce price. Both result to a higher utility per dollar spent. MS chose the latter and their retail price have reached the level under which differentiating factors between the two consoles (Netflix? Exclusive games? Live matchmaking? Home? NXE? Blu Ray?) become less important and price difference becomes more important in value determination.

 

[tha_con]

I'm not going to use it for much. The odd exclusive. For my tastes the exclusives are weak.

I understand everyone has different tastes, but if you've ever played a shooter, RTS, sports title, racing title, or even a quirky platformer, then the PS3 has plenty to offer that isn't "weak".

Also, I don't really understand what the first part of your post is supposed to say to us, other than that kids like kids games (which the Wii has in spades).

 

[Scott_Arm]

Also, I don't really understand what the first part of your post is supposed to say to us, other than that kids like kids games (which the Wii has in spades).

That's basically all I was trying to say.

As for exclusives, I haven't been really happy with what I've played on the PS3. I do like LBP and will most likely buy it in the next few weeks. That's entirely subjective though. It's not that they're bad, they just aren't my cup of tea. I think there are some strong titles coming, like Killzone2 and God of War 3 that should really help with sales in NA. I know I was going to buy one just for Killzone2 because I wanted to get in on the action early rather than wait for a price cut. That's why I jumped at this used deal when the opportunity arose. I paid $325 for a 60gig with backwards compatibility and an extra controller rather than $399 + tax at the store.

 

[eastmen]

As for software, the problem is, PS3 exclusives, outside of MGS4, don't seem to gel with the PS3 price point. Perhaps these games would have more appeal to an audience that would be able to justify the console at $199. However, R2/LBP/R2 failed to inspire people to go out and spend $399 to get a PS3 to play these games, in any large amounts.

I don't know , Resistance 2 on a $400 system apeals less than Gears of war 1 on a $400 system? Same goes with motorstorm compared to pgr3 , pgr4 and forza 2 all released on a $400 system "?

Its just momentum and right now the wii has it in spades and the 360 also has it to a degree. The ps3 doesn't have it and has an upward battle to gain momentum away from the 360 let alone the wii. The 360 has had year after year of mega hits and a great online service. It will take more than one holiday of a few good games or even killzone 2 to undo 2005 with cod2 , 2006 with gears of war , 2007 with halo3 /cod4 and 2008 with gears of war 2 , l4d , cod5. Now sure the ps3 had resistance 1 and it sold very well but it also came out on a $500/600 system and was 1 of the 3 worthwhile games of the first 10 months of so worth picking up. Its the same reason why pdz on the 360 is a million seller. Now resistance was a solid game, but it wasn't amazing. Resistance 2 from what i understand stand has an amazing co-op but a horrible sp campain. Really i think it needed another year of development.

The ps3 exclusives should be selling better , they are all very good games. For sony to have only 1 title in the top 20 of the month of dec when as far as i can remember no big games came out on the 360 nor the wii is very worring to me.

 

[RobertR1]

I don't know , Resistance 2 on a $400 system apeals less than Gears of war 1 on a $400 system? Same goes with motorstorm compared to pgr3 , pgr4 and forza 2 all released on a $400 system "?

It absolutely does. Otherwise, it would have been a hit this holiday season. The difference here is that Gears 1 was embraced by enough people to have Gears now being an elite franchise with over 5mil sales for the Gears1 and already 4million for Gears 2. The two resistance games failed to establish that sort of following. Even L4D, a new IP, vastly outperformed Resistance 2. We can say "well L4D is on a cheaper console!!!!" all day but that brings me back to my original point. If you're going to have a high price tag, you better hope your games are desirable enough that the masses can justify the price for the sake of wanting your games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The ps3 exclusives should be selling better , they are all very good games.

But you've just criticised R2 as not being very good! Son'ys very good games just aren't resonating with a massive audience at the moment, not least because any resonance is dampended by a high cost of entry. Yes, Gears shifted XB360's at a $400 price, but then there was an HD $200-300 alternative back then...

For sony to have only 1 title in the top 20 of the month of dec when as far as i can remember no big games came out on the 360 nor the wii is very worring to me.

It has half the install base of XB360. If games are selling even-stevens across the platforms, half the numbers won't make it to number 1. If the publishers are seeing the same percentage adoption across the platform, it's still doing okay. Numbers can be very misleading at times.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

No. We are saying almost the same thing. What I said is that the consumer considers the 360 to be of better value because of the price level.

There are two ways to affect perception and improve the value of the product in the eyes of the consumer. Either add features or reduce price. Both result to a higher utility per dollar spent.

Or, maybe none of that matters at all and the only thing that really influences consumer consumption is absolute cost. Not value or utility per dollar.

This is a point I made back when people were crowing over a PS3 'price cut', which was nothing of the sort. Adding value, whether by increasing HDD capacity (Sony) or bundling games and memory cards (MS), is not equal to dropping the cost and is not perceived by the consumer as equal.

Utility per dollar is only important to those consumers who actually value the extra features.

For example, PS3 going from a 40GB to 60GB HDD at the same price point doesn't appeal to me. I'd prefer a price cut, I'm not going to use that extra space. The 360 packing in 'Kung Fu Panda' doesn't appeal to me, I'd never so much as rent that game, drop the price $40 instead.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Or, maybe none of that matters at all and the only thing that really influences consumer consumption is absolute cost. Not value or utility per dollar.

If that were the case, the PS2 would be outselling everything, or at least the 360 Arcade would be the most popular current-gen console. What really matters is whether or not your price tag matches the product's actual value, which is defined by the customers.

Utility per dollar is only important to those consumers who actually value the extra features.

In other words...adding "utility" doesn't always add value. Adding value has to be done in a customer-oriented, not a product-oriented manner, because the customer decides what he does with his money and what he actually wants. Sony says that adding GB or a pack-in game makes the product worth $400. The customer says it doesn't (as you have said so yourself--you would rather spend the money on something else, like different games). Long story short, customers define value, not producers. And in this case, the vast majority of video game customers have defined the PS3 as not worth $400.

 

[eastmen]

It absolutely does. Otherwise, it would have been a hit this holiday season. The difference here is that Gears 1 was embraced by enough people to have Gears now being an elite franchise with over 5mil sales for the Gears1 and already 4million for Gears 2. The two resistance games failed to establish that sort of following. Even L4D, a new IP, vastly outperformed Resistance 2. We can say "well L4D is on a cheaper console!!!!" all day but that brings me back to my original point. If you're going to have a high price tag, you better hope your games are desirable enough that the masses can justify the price for the sake of wanting your games.

Thats my point though. These games should be selling because the 360 was able to sell games at the same price point.

It makes no sense to say that reistance 2 didn't sell wel lcause the ps3 is $400 bucks. The 360 was $400 bucks and never had a problem selling games.

But you've just criticised R2 as not being very good! Son'ys very good games just aren't resonating with a massive audience at the moment, not least because any resonance is dampended by a high cost of entry. Yes, Gears shifted XB360's at a $400 price, but then there was an HD $200-300 alternative back then...

I said the Sp was not good but the CO was and apparently the multiplayer was.

On the flip sid only cod5 sold well on the ps3 and made the top 20. As far as I know only cod5 and resistance 2 were big shooters released in oct-dec on the ps3. The 360 had at least 3 shooters that I know of , gears 2 , cod5 and l4d which all sold better than cod5 on the ps3 i believe (mabye left for dead was under the ps3 cod5 ?)

When gears launched it was $400/$300 and at the time it was a pretty bad bargin with no hardrive. The arcade unit didn't apear till the following year.

It has half the install base of XB360. If games are selling even-stevens across the platforms, half the numbers won't make it to number 1. If the publishers are seeing the same percentage adoption across the platform, it's still doing okay. Numbers can be very misleading at times.

but are they ? THere is ony ps3 title in the top 20. Wii music apparently sold a little over 800k LTD through the end of dec. That was at the 11th spot. Apparently through Nov it sold about 300k. Leaving us with 500k for the 11th spot sales total in dec. Now sony didn't have anything else except cod5 in the top 20 spots. So your looking at a 10 spots further down the line at least for another ps3. I don't know what the 21st title on the list would have sold comapred to the 11th , but I do know it was less than 500k . So would developers be happy with % of sales if they still only sold a 100k units of a title or 200k units of a title in the highest selling month of the year ?

 

[Mintmaster]

I agree but I described it from a reverse perspective. Did the 360 sell more than the PS3 because it has what it takes to differentiate itself from the crowd? No. Its a better price. Because of the price difference, the various differentiating factors are overshadowed by affordability. The closer they are though in price the clearer these differentiating factors become in the eyes of the consumer. It is those that somewhat maintain the sales of the PS3 at that level despite the higher price. But since the price difference is large enough it has shifted from the point where people are indifferent between the two and the 360 takes up more potential market share.

Obviously neither I nor others are trying to say that 360 and PS3 are 100% equal. When we say PS3 can't differentiate itself, we mean it's not different enough.

Sony has a lot of cost in the PS3 tied up in things that add too little value to justify the cost. Due to the PS2 momentum and MS's RRoD problem (which admittedly Sony could not predict), all Sony had to do was match MS in price and feature to win the HD half of this generation by a considerable margin. That MS overcame both the Playstation brand's power and the RRoD PR nightmare is a testament to how little value was placed on PS3's expensive bonuses.