NPD March 2008

[AlphaWolf]

Late response but I'll take a stab at explaining this one:

1) R6 is an established franchise on XBox, and not on PS so they've got that going for them

I suppose that's a factor, but apparently it's already sold many more copies than the original.

2) 360 is *the* console for FPS gamers. I thought everyone knew that by now...

There's no doubt Live and the 360 controller seem to give an edge for fps as they seem to do relatively better than other multi-platform games, I just thought rsv2 was way too much off the ratios even with those factors considered but it seems the original quoted 99k for ps3 was what was wrong as it was actually over 150k (corrected in the thread).

 

[fearsomepirate]

I'm surprised people even play fighting games on console in a home environment. There's little to no single player appeal, very little replayability. The only point is multiplayer. On PS3 or 360 or PC this isn't a big deal, but Nintendo's not exactly on the cutting edge of net play

Maybe Nintendo's next disruptive technology will allow multiple people to play on the same machine at once.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I can buy a Wii and complement my PS3, if i buy a 360 i get nothing special compared to my PS3. Just as well as someone that prefers the 360 and doesnt care about HiDef movies would gain Nintendo "magic" with a Wii.

Not true. What you get with an X360 that you don't get with a PS3 is a box that will play Halo and Gears of War. You also get Xbox Live if you want and $50 off the sticker price. You lose BR playback. In other words: It's still a decision for the consumer. It's not some "obvious" thing, so please don't diminish it.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Well the X360 is doing better than last year by about 30% and the PS3 is doing better by about 100%. Both are pretty healthy and I'm sure neither feels the need to drop price drastically. MS seems pretty content in the US as long as they are outselling PS3. Eventually once they've moved on to next-gen prep they probably won't even care about that anymore.

Definitely. PS3 seems to have more momentum going forward, however.

 

[StefanS]

Not true. What you get with an X360 that you don't get with a PS3 is a box that will play Halo and Gears of War. You also get Xbox Live if you want and $50 off the sticker price. You lose BR playback. In other words: It's still a decision for the consumer. It's not some "obvious" thing, so please don't diminish it.

I don't think -tfk- is trying to disparage X360's exclusives - indeed they're among the best titles released this gen, nobody in his right mind could argue against that. It's just that the Wii offers a different type of gaming to him (he's already a PS3), i.e. party games like Wii Sports or maybe he's just intrigued by the motion-control angle. I think that's the point he's trying to make. I think the same is probably true for X360 gamers looking for something different.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Definitely. PS3 seems to have more momentum going forward, however.

February to march, the ps3 dropped 26% per week, I'm not sure I'd call that momentum. It could be argued that Sony had a small uptake with the format victory and that's now tapering off.

 

[RobertR1]

The big difference this gen is that Nintendo focused strictly on gaming this gen. The other 2 were too busy with ulterior motives and using gaming as the pathway to get there. In the end, it's all about games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Tapering off to PS3 achieving parity with XB360 rather than being 50% of sales, which is where PS3 started. The 'kick' of increased sales has caused more 'momentum' which is carrying the platform forwards. Momentum isn't the same as an engine - PS3 is 'coasting' on the momentum, which 'friction' has an impact on. But the fact is PS3 has seen more growth than XB360 in NA. It has more energy driving it at the mo, Remember the platform has the added 'mass' of a significant price-tag to slow it down, so the same sales at a higher price equals more momentum. If them dollar signs were kilograms, and the sales numbers were miles-per-hour...

I think what we look at as market momentum is pretty irrelevant in the current climate though. There are enough big titles coming out over the coming months that a few quiet months for any platform won't make much difference. The losses and gains will be made on the big splashes. Who cares if you maintain a 75% average of your rival if a couple of big titles sell an extra bonus few million units?! The only time momentum really matters IMO, where you have these stable figures, is end of year, where the accrued brand awareness of the past year leads to people wanting the platform or not.

 

[Readykilowatt]

Both are pretty healthy and I'm sure neither feels the need to drop price drastically.

No! The PS3 is in no way, shape or form healthy at this time, however, the PS3 will destroy the Xbox 360 in the long run, mark my words.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Johnny, your logical jumps are simply Awesome.

So by that reasoning, can we say, for fighting games Wii controller is the best, since Brawl is absolutely destroying any other fighter this gen, even when normalized to user base?

I wouldn't classify Brawl as a traditional fighter. It's more of a party game and I'm sure we would all agree that the Wiimote is an excellent party game controller.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

That's why they have to do something different to gain more mass appeal.

They don't HAVE to. They could, but they don't HAVE to. It's not necessary for their strategies.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Tapering off to PS3 achieving parity with XB360 rather than being 50% of sales, which is where PS3 started. The 'kick' of increased sales has caused more 'momentum' which is carrying the platform forwards. Momentum isn't the same as an engine - PS3 is 'coasting' on the momentum, which 'friction' has an impact on. But the fact is PS3 has seen more growth than XB360 in NA. It has more energy driving it at the mo, Remember the platform has the added 'mass' of a significant price-tag to slow it down, so the same sales at a higher price equals more momentum. If them dollar signs were kilograms, and the sales numbers were miles-per-hour...

That's assuming it will maintain parity with the 360 for april. Keep in mind also that comparing to last year doesn't quite show the whole picture, as it was a $599 ps3 vs a $399 360. The PS3 had already gained a lot of that ground with a $200 lower price point.

I think what we look at as market momentum is pretty irrelevant in the current climate though. There are enough big titles coming out over the coming months that a few quiet months for any platform won't make much difference. The losses and gains will be made on the big splashes. Who cares if you maintain a 75% average of your rival if a couple of big titles sell an extra bonus few million units?! The only time momentum really matters IMO, where you have these stable figures, is end of year, where the accrued brand awareness of the past year leads to people wanting the platform or not.

I think a significant number of people simply buy what their friends buy. There's no question there are other factors, but I wouldn't say the influence is irrelevant.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Maybe Nintendo's next disruptive technology will allow multiple people to play on the same machine at once.

Yeah, I get the whole local multiplayer thing, but its a LOT easier to find other gamers online, than it is to find a friend or 3 to come over and play a game whenever you feel like it.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

February to march, the ps3 dropped 26% per week, I'm not sure I'd call that momentum. It could be argued that Sony had a small uptake with the format victory and that's now tapering off.

Temporary plateau then. I'm fairly confident that titles such as GT5 (even just the Prologue version) and MGS4 are system sellers, so I expect PS3 hardware sales to pick up again shortly.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Not true. What you get with an X360 that you don't get with a PS3 is a box that will play Halo and Gears of War. You also get Xbox Live if you want and $50 off the sticker price. You lose BR playback. In other words: It's still a decision for the consumer. It's not some "obvious" thing, so please don't diminish it.

XBox live is a paid service, last time I checked. You're citing that as a positive? I mean, the service itself is fantastic, but paying for it certainly isn't, especially not with FREE PS Home and in-game XMB just around the corner for PS3.

 

[Zassk]

XBox live is certainly a positive, whether the customer pays the multiplayer fee or not.

If it's a choice between Sony's Second Life clone vs. Microsoft's TV/movie service, I think the latter has far more mainstream appeal.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

XBox live is certainly a positive, whether the customer pays the multiplayer fee or not.

It's an expense that could make the 360 have a higher TCO than the PS3 (media/gaming purchases aside).

If it's a choice between Sony's Second Life clone vs. Microsoft's TV/movie service, I think the latter has far more mainstream appeal.

PS3 is a better media center than 360. Sorry, there's no debating this one. MS has an excellent online gaming service, but if they think they can shift as much media or build a bigger community than Sony can they're in for a surprise.

 

[dobwal]

XBox live is a paid service, last time I checked. You're citing that as a positive? I mean, the service itself is fantastic, but paying for it certainly isn't, especially not with FREE PS Home and in-game XMB just around the corner for PS3.

People don't buy the 360 to use Live. Neither do people buy the PS3 to take advantage of the free online services. If everything else were equal between the two consoles then maybe paid versus free would be a strong influence among the majority of gamers. But things aren't equal and free versus paid online gaming falls below more notable comparsions like price and library offerings. Furthermore, $4 a month or $50 a year does not present a huge barrier for those who want to game online, which lessen the importance of the comparsion in terms of purchase considerations.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

People don't buy the 360 to use Live. Neither do people buy the PS3 to take advantage of the free online services. If everything else were equal between the two consoles then maybe paid versus free would be a strong influence among the majority of gamers. But things aren't equal and free versus paid online gaming falls below more notable comparsions like price and library offerings. Furthermore, $4 a month or $50 a year does not present a huge barrier for those who want to game online, which lessen the importance of the comparsion in terms of purchase considerations.

Remember that whole "$50 difference = a game" argument? Yeah............... Free game every year sounds good to me.

 

[dobwal]

PS3 is a better media center than 360. Sorry, there's no debating this one. MS has an excellent online gaming service, but if they think they can shift as much media or build a bigger community than Sony can they're in for a surprise.

Alot of people find that Linux is a better OS than Windows and you can find better featured MP3 players with more storage at a cheaper price that competes against the Ipod. Saying something is better doesn't necessarily leads to bigger.

If I not mistaken, MS already has a bigger community and shifts more media through Live than Sony does through its service.