NPD November 2008

[AlNom]

I suppose we can surmise then that anything between 10 and 18 sold between 184K and 297K.

 

[midorigreenwood]

We get mixed messages on Wii Music's price, though. The game itself says low production values, but we hear about how they had been working on it for two years and how so much work went into it.

yeah, but you wouldn't think it would have necessitated a 200 man development team like Killzone 2.

Yeah, but all of the money they've saved in development cost they've surely spent on one of the most intense advertising campaigns for a video game I've ever seen. It's on every commercial break it seems like.

without doubt........ companies are going to have to learn that they have to allocate more of the game development budget to proper traditional forms of marketing if they want to make any kind of splash on the Wii audience.

Nintendo advertises all day every day for their products.

 

[midorigreenwood]

I am curious, what 1st party developers are they losing? I don't remember Sony shutting down, selling or losing any 1st party studios like Microsoft have.

How is the 3rd party support rocky? It is certainly better than what it was the previous year. Is it going to somehow get worse?

Sony has more than enough games in development to keep their core audience happy for the next two years.

It would be suicidal to just throw it away.

Thats why people are always moaning about why Sony is too freaking big and needs to be sliced up to many parts to be competitive.

Personally, I think Sony should be implementing heavy pricecuts as a sort of "last stand" and at the same time go on one of the biggest advertising campaigns in the history of mankind to promote their big titles next year.

However, they are part of this giant conglomerate and with the company so weak it is muzzling the games division at the worst possible time and preventing any sort of fightback that they can muster.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Devs aren't going to provide a lot of support to a dying PS3 userbase and PS4's prospective support would take a definitive hit as devs aren't going to very trusting of Sony's commitment to the new console.

Furthermore, consumers are going to have major reservations with buying a PS4 with Sony already having a history of given up on one of its consoles.

Like developers and consumers had such a hard time doing those things with Microsoft and the Xbox?

The fact that MS dropped the Xbox early and got the next gen lead is what lead to developer exclusives like Bioshock which is what lead to the ability to drop its price point which combined with the game catalog lead to the consumer base.

 

[Arwin]

The idea that Sony should ditch the PS3 is of course preposterous. All the investment has already been done, and it is 10 times more likely that Sony will try to recoup money from that investments for more years than fewer, and/or rebirth it at some point like the Wii basically did the GameCube hardware by adding the wii-mote.

Sony has done a lot of hard work and investments / catching up and unless there is a very obvious reason / alternative that allows them to throw all those investments away in favor of The Next Big ThingTM or for some reason they hit a complete bottleneck on the PS3 hardware cost-reduction that needs a major policy change, the PS3 and its related services (PSN, Home) are going to stay for a long while yet.

Even if the next PS3 pricedrop is going to utterly fail in bringing the universe back in balance, we're more likely to see something like new controllers and software trying to regain market share, rather than something more radical like dropping the PS3 altogether. For Sony as a whole, the game related revenues have become vital to the core of its existence. Nothing is currently showing that the games market is slowing down or will even suddenly stop to be one of the most profitable markets in the entertainment industry as a whole, and any company that has a half-decent footing in this market (let alone Sony) would be crazy to step out of it, least of all Sony.

Anyway, there's lots more to say about this, but it's too meaningless a discussion to have right now, and I'm going to bed!

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

S As stated, Sony will continue on. If they botch next generation and the one after that, then we have problems.

If Sony botches the next generation as badly as they did this one, they'll be out of the business. Let alone the next TWO generations.

As far as Sony continuing on, they should. They should be looking to extend the PS3's life as long as possible, and they should make sure that when the launch after the next MS console, they do so with a console that is clearly superior.

That's how I see it, anyway. They've got two choices: Combine the strategies of Nintendo & MS by launching early with a PS3.5 (same architecture, just toss in more memory, newest nVidia chip but leave cell and split memory, etc). Or, wait for the economics of the situation to dictate the PS3's lifecycle.. (it will sell when it hits $199, let that happen when it is profitable to do so), relying on their own IP to carry their user base until then and launch later but with a superior console.

The problem wasn't just that the PS3 was expensive, or that it was late, or that it didn't offer anything more than its nearest competitor. The problem was it was all of those things.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Nothing is currently showing that the games market is slowing down or will even suddenly stop to be one of the most profitable markets in the entertainment industry as a whole, and any company that has a half-decent footing in this market (let alone Sony) would be crazy to step out of it, least of all Sony.

The CNN article linked by PSI had a telling first paragraph.

Sony's (SNE) PS3 is dying on the shelves.

Alone among the three major videogame consoles, sales of the PS3 are down about 19% from November 2007, according to the latest stats from the NPD Group. Sony was only able to sell 378,000 PS3s this November, compared to 466,000 last year.

Ouch.

 

[Arwin]

Yes, we all know that. Which is related to my point in what way? You'll have to explain, since all this information is already in this thread and a large part of the reason for this discussion in the first place, so you'll have to assume it as given and explain why your quote of it is relevant to my paragraph.

@Rancid: and software. You have to have compelling, exclusive first party software that makes your console the console to have. Who would want a Wii if it wasn't for Nintendo's first party software, after all? That's probably a bigger lesson than anything else. It would have been so easy for Sony to create cheap PSN family games using a common graphics engine, but they've been targetting the hardcore. A big edge that Microsoft had was in the way of Live support (=software), which was important especially in the U.S. Sony Japan didn't see the importance, and took to long to listen to an increasingly frustrated Phil Harrison (and I presume Kaz Hirai) to pick up on these issues.

 

[obonicus]

The CNN article linked by PSI had a telling first paragraph.

Sony's (SNE) PS3 is dying on the shelves.

Alone among the three major videogame consoles, sales of the PS3 are down about 19% from November 2007, according to the latest stats from the NPD Group. Sony was only able to sell 378,000 PS3s this November, compared to 466,000 last year.

Ouch.

It's a really bad posting, though. I mean, they say that 'no one cares about BRD'. Okay, let's not even analyze that, but instead look at the sourced article... from May 2008? There's a whole bunch of little bits that really make it amount into little more than op-ed disguised as a news post, and perfect console wars fodder. Yay for blogs.

 

[Afrikan]

If Sony botches the next generation as badly as they did this one, they'll be out of the business. Let alone the next TWO generations.

As far as Sony continuing on, they should. They should be looking to extend the PS3's life as long as possible, and they should make sure that when the launch after the next MS console, they do so with a console that is clearly superior.

That's how I see it, anyway. They've got two choices: Combine the strategies of Nintendo & MS by launching early with a PS3.5 (same architecture, just toss in more memory, newest nVidia chip but leave cell and split memory, etc). Or, wait for the economics of the situation to dictate the PS3's lifecycle.. (it will sell when it hits $199, let that happen when it is profitable to do so), relying on their own IP to carry their user base until then and launch later but with a superior console.

The problem wasn't just that the PS3 was expensive, or that it was late, or that it didn't offer anything more than its nearest competitor. The problem was it was all of those things.

by all accounts it seems that the PS3 was rushed.......because the 360 was rushed...

From a businsess stand point MS did a great job of releasing the console early.....and advertising the hell out of it..... this seems to have came at a price, the hardware is/was not stable....but they still released it early and had alot of devs building engines for their consoles first... there are lot of hardcore gamers out there that put up with these faulty systems and even bought second ones while waiting for their replacements...... so the sacrifice was worth it for MS....

like I said in a previous post, I'd doubt the next PS4 will be expensive, arrive late, or not offer great games at launch....

The CNN article linked by PSI had a telling first paragraph.

Sony's (SNE) PS3 is dying on the shelves.

Alone among the three major videogame consoles, sales of the PS3 are down about 19% from November 2007, according to the latest stats from the NPD Group. Sony was only able to sell 378,000 PS3s this November, compared to 466,000 last year.

Ouch.

I think someone in another forum mentioned that in November 2007 the PS3 had a price reduction to $399...so that helped with sales....and well this year the system is still the same price....where as you have MS constantly advertising that you can purchase a NEXT Gen system $199.99.... $50 cheaper than a Nintendo Wii...... every commercial...haha... their doing a great job advertising....

Sony is in tough position because there is no way (not that they are trying to) they can compete with the Wii in price or the Wii market....

and this brings us to MS.... if Sony does drop the price to $299, that's still $100 more expensive that what MS is offering.... so to it would not be that worth it for them rush and drop the price.....they will most likely drop it when they feel they're in a position to......and like some in this thread have said...just worry about profit and not market share.....for now.....

 

[Refreshment]

I have to say that I'm getting pretty damn tired of hearing about "the catastropic effect of the economic crisis" in relation to the video game industry......

Clearly you are tired of hearing that since it even prevented you from understanding the point of my post.

I haven't said that recession had a "huge" breaking effect over all the video game sector sales. What i was trying to say was that it made the consumer even more sensitive to price, specially concerning the PS3, since its sales diminish from last year even with an improved catalog.

I think i agree with the rest of your post tough.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The problem wasn't just that the PS3 was expensive, or that it was late, or that it didn't offer anything more than its nearest competitor. The problem was it was all of those things.

Yep I have to agree with those and one big issue is also that Sony should have released the first editions of their big hitters sooner than never... X360 has already seen 2 Gears and one Halo among other games. The PS3 should have had Gran Turismo, God of War and Final Fantasy out by now and we should be currently waiting for the second PS3 instalment of those games. Well MGS 4 is out already, but there should have been more.

Clearly you are tired of hearing that since it even prevented you from understanding the point of my post.

I haven't said that recession had a "huge" breaking effect over all the video game sector sales. What i was trying to say was that it made the consumer even more sensitive to price, specially concerning the PS3, since its sales diminish from last year even with an improved catalog.

I think i agree with the rest of your post tough.

Well my post wasn't directly targeted at you, as that crisis talk effect is everywhere and perhaps the tone was slightly too aggressive anyways... PS3 had a price cut last year right in time for those numbers, so it's not that surprising that it now sold less. My opinion is that the current economic climate is a very minor reason for PS3 losing ground against its competitors, for example Wii + Wii fit is also not a very cheap compination, but people are tearing them from the store shelves like mad monkeys.

 

[Refreshment]

Well my post wasn't directly targeted at you, as that crisis talk effect is everywhere and perhaps the tone was slightly too aggressive anyways... PS3 had a price cut last year right in time for those numbers, so it's not that surprising that it now sold less. My opinion is that the current economic climate is a very minor reason for PS3 losing ground against its competitors, for example Wii + Wii fit is also not a very cheap compination, but people are tearing them from the store shelves like mad monkeys.

Yes, i know how it is with the perpetual echoing of misconceptions, we tend to get a little jumpy.

Your point of view regarding the PS3 is reasonable and might be the case. Yet the only little qualm i have with your post is that you used Wii + Wii fit as examples. And we know how in "vogue" products tend to defy conventional logic

The unfortunate thing for Sony is every year spent behind MS in userbase is another year lost. The battle for second place in the console war is on... and Sony is left with little. They needed to be down to $299 or lower this fall.

I think that right now Sony is in a position that the only battle they care to win is the one that leads them to a profitable PS3 venture. The rank battle takes a back seat.

 

[dobwal]

Like developers and consumers had such a hard time doing those things with Microsoft and the Xbox?

The fact that MS dropped the Xbox early and got the next gen lead is what lead to developer exclusives like Bioshock which is what lead to the ability to drop its price point which combined with the game catalog lead to the consumer base.

Microsoft didn't introduce the xbox 360 early. It just introduced the xbox 1 late. The start of the new generation has been fairly consistent here in the US since the NES days. The NES drop in 1985, the Sega Genesis drop in 1989, the PS1 dropped in 1995, the PS2 dropped in 2000 (1999 if you want to use the Dreamcast) and the 360 dropped in 2005.

Discontinuing the PS3 right now present a different set of circumstances.

Sony would be dropping the PS3 in the middle of a generation and not the tail end of a generation like MS did with the Xbox.

The PS4 is no where near ready to be released and even if it was it wouldn't be much of an upgrade or would come at a price premium similar to PS3 launch prices.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Yes, we all know that. Which is related to my point in what way? You'll have to explain, since all this information is already in this thread and a large part of the reason for this discussion in the first place, so you'll have to assume it as given and explain why your quote of it is relevant to my paragraph.

Was this directed towards me? I'm wondering, because you specifically directed your next point to me. If this was to me, it was to demonstrate your point about the market as a whole not having any sort of difficulty. The PS3's competitors have managed to increase their year to year sales, the PS3 is the only that has declined.

The point is clearly that the market isn't the problem with the PS3. There is another cause.

@Rancid: and software. You have to have compelling, exclusive first party software that makes your console the console to have.

I think your basic assumption is incorrect, that the only market worth having is the one that has a single console.

The PS3 has exclusive first (and second) party software that makes the PS3 the 'console to have' for those who are interested in those legacy IPs. Furthermore, the PS3 does have the benefit of Blu-ray. While that isn't a big enough 'value' to match their current price, combined with those exclusive IPs at a reasonable price point, I expect the PS3 to sell very well.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's a really bad posting, though. I mean, they say that 'no one cares about BRD'. Okay, let's not even analyze that, but instead look at the sourced article... from May 2008? There's a whole bunch of little bits that really make it amount into little more than op-ed disguised as a news post, and perfect console wars fodder. Yay for blogs.

You could do that. I thought it was an interesting bit because of the source of the article, not the source of the content the article referenced. It was from CNN, it represents the mainstream media's view of the PS3.

And honestly, anyway you cut it, losing sales from Nov 07 to Nov 08 is a rather poor indicator.

I didn't read the source article of their conclusion that nobody cares about BR because nobody cares about HDTV, because they went on to say the difference couldn't be seen unless you had a 50 inch TV. That, in itself, was enough for me to discard that explanation as the reason the PS3 lost sales.

To say that nobody (or not enough) people care about BR to compensate for the increased price is probably accurate, but that's not where they went.

In fact, I just signed up for the 'free netflix trial' on the 360, and the first movie I added to my queue was Iron Man. I went back downstairs to my 360, saw that I could download Iron man in HD, set it to download and then deleted the DVD from my netflix queue because I want to watch it in HD.

I'd rather download the HD version (even if only 720p, that's all my DLP displays at anyway), than watch the DVD version even if I have to pay to do so. I can tell the difference between 480p and 720p on my 46 inch screen, so CNN's comment about needing a 50 inch tv to tell the difference between 480p and 1080p was something that was just immediately disregarded as bunk.

I know I'm not alone, but I also doubt I'm in the majority.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

by all accounts it seems that the PS3 was rushed.......because the 360 was rushed...

From a businsess stand point MS did a great job of releasing the console early.....and advertising the hell out of it..... this seems to have came at a price, the hardware is/was not stable....but they still released it early and had alot of devs building engines for their consoles first... there are lot of hardcore gamers out there that put up with these faulty systems and even bought second ones while waiting for their replacements...... so the sacrifice was worth it for MS....

I know that has become the fashionable excuse/rationalization for the hardware failures due to a lack of Q&A on MS' part, but I have yet to see any indication that this was a planned strategy.

I think the simpler explanation is that MS just didn't know what the hell they were doing, getting into hardware manufacturing a complicated CE device.

I also must have missed all the reports about how the PS3 was 'rushed'. Everything that I read had the PS3 delayed beyond their original target date due to delays from the Blu-ray diode manufacturing. The system build and architecture weren't rushed, according to my understanding of the situation.

 

[obonicus]

You could do that. I thought it was an interesting bit because of the source of the article, not the source of the content the article referenced. It was from CNN, it represents the mainstream media's view of the PS3.

And honestly, anyway you cut it, losing sales from Nov 07 to Nov 08 is a rather poor indicator.

No doubt, but though it's on a big website, it represents a blog. I don't know; have blogs really become the mainstream media? It's unedited drivel just like any other blog, but on a big-name website. I'm just annoyed at how bad it is.

It's just poor analysis; that the PS3 is doing poorly is a given. To list out the reasons like a forum post, and come to the 'Sony must cut prices' conclusion is just... honestly, whenever someone says that 'Sony HAS to cut prices NOW' as a way to somehow fix things for Sony, it just says they're not paying attention to the situation.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

No doubt, but though it's on a big website, it represents a blog. I don't know; have blogs really become the mainstream media? It's unedited drivel just like any other blog, but on a big-name website. I'm just annoyed at how bad it is.

Ehh. Now you're talking about fundamental problems with 'the new media' vs 'the mainstream media', and that issue is one that certainly transcends this debate.

Is Eric Krangel a CNN employee who happens to also have his own blog? Or is he merely a blogger that CNN paid 'per diem' to pick up this individual story?

You say it was 'unedited', but I'm not sure if CNN.com has the same editorial standards of CNN (TV) or not. Are you sure that they don't?

It's just poor analysis; that the PS3 is doing poorly is a given. To list out the reasons like a forum post, and come to the 'Sony must cut prices' conclusion is just... honestly, whenever someone says that 'Sony HAS to cut prices NOW' as a way to somehow fix things for Sony, it just says they're not paying attention to the situation.

It's true the conclusion they've come to is no different than many posts from laymen in this thread. It also dances on the line between perspectives: Is this what is needed to win some imaginary 'console war'? or is this what is needed for Sony and their shareholders? or is this what is needed for the consumers to 'get a good deal'?

Speaking as a fanboy, I want them to dump PS3s on the market at the lowest price possible so they can have the most units sold and win the 'console war'.

Speaking as a consumer, I want them to drop the price to $199 so I can go buy one so I can watch Blu-ray movies and play the PS3 exclusives I can't play on my 360.

Speaking as a stockholder, I want them to hang tough on their price point, take advantage of cost saving manufacturing reductions and drop the price only when it will increase sales while not further reducing profitability.

Don't forget how two of those groups, the fanboys and consumers, were clamoring for MS to lower the price on the 360 for a year before they finally did.

MS answered to their stockholders. Not the consumers, not the fanboys. Sony should do the same, and they'll be fine doing so.

The PS3 will be relevant for at least 5 more years, and will be profitable for at least the last 3.

Or so says my crystal ball.

 

[tirminyl]

No doubt, but though it's on a big website, it represents a blog. I don't know; have blogs really become the mainstream media? It's unedited drivel just like any other blog, but on a big-name website. I'm just annoyed at how bad it is.

It's just poor analysis; that the PS3 is doing poorly is a given. To list out the reasons like a forum post, and come to the 'Sony must cut prices' conclusion is just... honestly, whenever someone says that 'Sony HAS to cut prices NOW' as a way to somehow fix things for Sony, it just says they're not paying attention to the situation.

Man, you should see the other one for Time. He originally wrote that out of the nearly 17 million PS3 users, that a scant 200k resided in the US He also warned people to not buy Home since it was "beta". I know I sent an email correcting him on his entire article and it appears others have as well because it has been revised and incorrect information has been removed but it was still strange to see something like that happen in that type of media...though I am not shocked.

http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/gamezine-speaks-time-changes-$1254211.htm