NPD October 2007

Why do people want to act like action means FPS? Most of the games on the Xbox 360 are NOT FPS even. The only one that even jumps out to my mind is Halo 3. In fact, of the 1 million sellers so far for the Xbox 360 there is only three or four FPS games in that list.

Honestly, the fault with these threads is that people try to predict what will be the game to save the PS3's horrible sales and when that doesn't pan out for them, they blame it on the game not being a FPS or being too "original" for the market. It's rather sad, to be frank, that PS3's problems go well beyond the type of games coming out for it. It comes from a general lack of interest for a more expensive product that is not making itself unique to the cheaper and more stable (appearing) platform. Not only that, but now a general worry about the PS3 is starting to build. Time after time these sales go out and they hurt Sony more and more. Unless they can completely do a change on their image, Sony is in for continued disappointment.
 
Today at best buy I saw stand along BR players for the same price as a 40gb ps3, I wonder if that will cut into sales of the people that were only getting a ps3 as a cheap player
 
Possible, but PS3 will also generate more interests from people who don't mind games :) It is more high profile anyway.

Skrying said:
Honestly, the fault with these threads is that people try to predict what will be the game to save the PS3's horrible sales and when that doesn't pan out for them, they blame it on the game not being a FPS or being too "original" for the market. It's rather sad, to be frank, that PS3's problems go well beyond the type of games coming out for it. It comes from a general lack of interest for a more expensive product that is not making itself unique to the cheaper and more stable (appearing) platform. Not only that, but now a general worry about the PS3 is starting to build. Time after time these sales go out and they hurt Sony more and more. Unless they can completely do a change on their image, Sony is in for continued disappointment.

...which is why I mentioned Sony will have to sustain its marketing over a few months before they can see a self sustaining momentum. There are great things about PS3, but Sony is just starting its marketing. Money they saved earlier on for the high price and (little or no) marketing will need to be coughed out again to gain momentum. :)


Scooby_dooby said:
The problem is Sony's 'hype' seems to exist mainly on the internet, and not in the minds of mainstream consumers.

It might mean that there are negative forces at work offline. Even in the online world, they have not escaped their previous shadow of FUD yet. They will need to offer something unique (rather than just demo esand talks), plus some serious fan services for an extended period to gain their credibility/reputation back.




EDIT: BTW, Sony moved to clarify their PR statements here:
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/11/sony-reacts-to.html#more

Whatever it is... it's good to see Sony more eager on the marketing front now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for Ratchet's sales...
A current AAA title may cost somewhere between 15 and 30 million dollars to make. That's just development, and income has to cover retailer profits, publisher expenses (marketing, manufacturing, logistics), their profits, and if it's not first party, IHV licence fees.

I'm not entirely sure about these individual costs, but it's safe to assume $5 for manufacturing and logistics, at least $5 for the retailer, and marketing costs can change between 50-200% of the game's budget. Licence costs are $4-10 as far as I know.

At an average of $55, selling 500,000 units will make $27,500,000. Even a first party AAA title will probably not break even with these sales.

Ratchet has sold about 100K in the US and Japan, that's at most $4.5-5 million for Sony. They're very, very far from making a profit on that game.

retailers get just 5 dollars for selling a $60 dollar game? Im under the impression its more like $15 dollars or more.

$15 for retailers + $10 for licensing fee + $35 go to the publisher (which is used to recoup investment for development/marketing and profits).

Im might be mistaken but a gamestop would only see $5000 from $60000 in total sales of new gen games, thats off 1000 units.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Possible, but PS3 will also generate more interests from people who don't mind games :) It is more high profile anyway.



...which is why I mentioned Sony will have to sustain its marketing over a few months before they can see a self sustaining momentum. There are great things about PS3, but Sony is just starting its marketing. Money they saved earlier on for the high price and (little or no) marketing will need to be coughed out again to gain momentum. :)

The problem with the PS3 - and the reason its sales are a complete failure in the NA market - has nothing to do with marketing.

You don't think it's due to:
  • Over-hyped capabilities pre-launch, with the system failing to live up to the hype? Eg, "Xbox 1.5", when the PS3 only have a couple of games that look better that the 360's best lookers, with a vast majority of multi-platform games looking inferior?
  • Completely messing up the pricing on the system, making it a big miss for most people compared to their earlier machines, and especially compared to the competition?
  • Dismissing the competition as uncompetitive - saying the Wii is fine because they've for kids who will move onto the Playstation when they grow up?
  • Having a much poorer game library for the average game player? Sure you've said you prefer the PS3's library, but Sony aiming at such a niche crowd (those who prefer playing RPG card games over webcam compared to high-scoring WRPGs) is not going to sell your system?
The list goes on and on. They can throw more marketing dollars at the system, sure - it's already advertised at the movies, in prime time, hell - it's even on a Prime Time show! Heroes has a scene with one of the characters playing Heavenly Sword! :LOL: It's all a little ironic when I hear people say, "oh, the PS3 will do better when the marketing kicks in".

The Playstation marketing machine - which worked for the PS2 - kicked in before the system launched, with all the usual comical quotes... especially the usuals from "Double Krazy Double K" as he has been referred to. Keeping people "on hold" for the new Sony system sunk the Dreamcast in the PS2 era, but it it's failed for the PS3 to do the same to the Xbox 360 and Wii.
 
The problem with the PS3 - and the reason its sales are a complete failure in the NA market - has nothing to do with marketing.

You don't think it's due to:
  • Over-hyped capabilities pre-launch, with the system failing to live up to the hype? Eg, "Xbox 1.5", when the PS3 only have a couple of games that look better that the 360's best lookers, with a vast majority of multi-platform games looking inferior?
  • Completely messing up the pricing on the system, making it a big miss for most people compared to their earlier machines, and especially compared to the competition?
  • Dismissing the competition as uncompetitive - saying the Wii is fine because they've for kids who will move onto the Playstation when they grow up?
  • Having a much poorer game library for the average game player? Sure you've said you prefer the PS3's library, but Sony aiming at such a niche crowd (those who prefer playing RPG card games over webcam compared to high-scoring WRPGs) is not going to sell your system?
The list goes on and on. They can throw more marketing dollars at the system, sure - it's already advertised at the movies, in prime time, hell - it's even on a Prime Time show! Heroes has a scene with one of the characters playing Heavenly Sword! :LOL: It's all a little ironic when I hear people say, "oh, the PS3 will do better when the marketing kicks in".

The Playstation marketing machine - which worked for the PS2 - kicked in before the system launched, with all the usual comical quotes... especially the usuals from "Double Krazy Double K" as he has been referred to. Keeping people "on hold" for the new Sony system sunk the Dreamcast in the PS2 era, but it it's failed for the PS3 to do the same to the Xbox 360 and Wii.

Everything you mentioned is a part of marketing.
 
retailers get just 5 dollars for selling a $60 dollar game? Im under the impression its more like $15 dollars or more.

$15 for retailers + $10 for licensing fee + $35 go to the publisher (which is used to recoup investment for development/marketing and profits).

Im might be mistaken but a gamestop would only see $5000 from $60000 in total sales of new gen games, thats off 1000 units.

an article a couple of months ago in OXM outlined it exactly... oh I wish I would have saved it :devilish:.... Pretty sure it said the retailer makes $10/game.
 
Gears of War isnt FPS yet it sold millions and had lots of preorders.

For all intents and purposes, Gears of War was an FPS; it appealed to the same demographic in any event. I know some people will find fault with that logic, but in my mind honestly I lump Gears and Halo into the same pile. Even moreso than I would lump Lost Planet into it, which is similar to Gears. There's just something about the artistic 'style' of Gears than is extremely similar to the modern FPS genre.

Mass Effect has something special going for it, and indeed it's a title - in fact the only title I can think of - that I will truly be missing this season due to my console choice.

Skrying said:
It comes from a general lack of interest for a more expensive product that is not making itself unique to the cheaper and more stable (appearing) platform.

I thought I'd address this first, even though it comes after the below.

There's two different conversations going on here: hardware sales, and software sales. But I don't think anyone is specifically discussing software selling hardware at this time - the software discussion is on the software sales themselves. And in that context, it doesn't matter if x amount of the population considers the PS3 over-priced or a waste of time or whatever else... we're talking about the percentage of the population that already owns it, and why they didn't buy whatever titles in question. And to that...

Honestly, the fault with these threads is that people try to predict what will be the game to save the PS3's horrible sales and when that doesn't pan out for them, they blame it on the game not being a FPS or being too "original" for the market. It's rather sad, to be frank, that PS3's problems go well beyond the type of games coming out for it.

I *do* think it not being an 'FPS' (used loosely) or being 'too' original has something to do with it. For example, let's pretend Ratchet and Clank were on 360, and same for Uncharted. Would you buy these yourself? Why or why not? Do you consider them 'excellent' games?

Again, there are two discussions going on here, and for my part I'm involved strictly in the software sales discussion for the time being.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with the PS3 - and the reason its sales are a complete failure in the NA market - has nothing to do with marketing.

You don't think it's due to:
  • Over-hyped capabilities pre-launch, with the system failing to live up to the hype? Eg, "Xbox 1.5", when the PS3 only have a couple of games that look better that the 360's best lookers, with a vast majority of multi-platform games looking inferior?
  • Completely messing up the pricing on the system, making it a big miss for most people compared to their earlier machines, and especially compared to the competition?
  • Dismissing the competition as uncompetitive - saying the Wii is fine because they've for kids who will move onto the Playstation when they grow up?
  • Having a much poorer game library for the average game player? Sure you've said you prefer the PS3's library, but Sony aiming at such a niche crowd (those who prefer playing RPG card games over webcam compared to high-scoring WRPGs) is not going to sell your system?
The list goes on and on. They can throw more marketing dollars at the system, sure - it's already advertised at the movies, in prime time, hell - it's even on a Prime Time show! Heroes has a scene with one of the characters playing Heavenly Sword! :LOL: It's all a little ironic when I hear people say, "oh, the PS3 will do better when the marketing kicks in".

The Playstation marketing machine - which worked for the PS2 - kicked in before the system launched, with all the usual comical quotes... especially the usuals from "Double Krazy Double K" as he has been referred to. Keeping people "on hold" for the new Sony system sunk the Dreamcast in the PS2 era, but it it's failed for the PS3 to do the same to the Xbox 360 and Wii.

exactly...

ALL of this strategy could have worked (ala dreamcast) had the machine come out of the gate with a DISTINCT software, gameplay and graphical advantage over the 360 as promised.

the fact that it does NOT offer that distinct advantage over the lower priced competition (already with good software and services) is its current failing (direct competition, as I consider Wii another market). This can only be corrected (or the losses lessened) by leveraging their brand name with a competitive price and more/better software which they are now in the process of doing.
 
You don't think it's due to:
  • Over-hyped capabilities pre-launch, with the system failing to live up to the hype? Eg, "Xbox 1.5", when the PS3 only have a couple of games that look better that the 360's best lookers, with a vast majority of multi-platform games looking inferior?
  • Completely messing up the pricing on the system, making it a big miss for most people compared to their earlier machines, and especially compared to the competition?

The above are squarely marketing issues. The simplest definitions of marketing (mix) is: places, promotion, price, and product.

  • Dismissing the competition as uncompetitive - saying the Wii is fine because they've for kids who will move onto the Playstation when they grow up?

That's PR. They need better (more sincere) PR to improve their image, so FUDs can be tamed.

  • Having a much poorer game library for the average game player? Sure you've said you prefer the PS3's library, but Sony aiming at such a niche crowd (those who prefer playing RPG card games over webcam compared to high-scoring WRPGs) is not going to sell your system?
The list goes on and on. They can throw more marketing dollars at the system, sure - it's already advertised at the movies, in prime time, hell - it's even on a Prime Time show! Heroes has a scene with one of the characters playing Heavenly Sword! :LOL: It's all a little ironic when I hear people say, "oh, the PS3 will do better when the marketing kicks in".
[/LIST]

This is product marketing. But I think you picked the most obscured example to illustrate your point. Mind you, EoJ is a great game and has its audience. But even Sony is not actively promoting it. Right now, they are promoting Resistance, Uncharted, R&C and AC depending on which regions you are in.

Also, you might want to read up on marketing before criticizing or :LOL: at it. ;-)

The Playstation marketing machine - which worked for the PS2 - kicked in before the system launched, with all the usual comical quotes... especially the usuals from "Double Krazy Double K" as he has been referred to. Keeping people "on hold" for the new Sony system sunk the Dreamcast in the PS2 era, but it it's failed for the PS3 to do the same to the Xbox 360 and Wii.

That's hype... doesn't tell me much about marketing really.


Tap In said:
exactly...

ALL of this strategy could have worked (ala dreamcast) had the machine come out of the gate with a DISTINCT software, gameplay and graphical advantage over the 360 as promised.

the fact that it does NOT offer that distinct advantage over the lower priced competition (already with good software and services) is its current failing (direct competition, as I consider Wii another market). This can only to be corrected (or the losses lessened) by leveraging their brand name with a competitive price and more/better software which they are now in the process of doing.

Not really, Wii came with just a strong Wii Sports title and it still beat both Xbox 360 and PS3. Yes, it is perceived/positioned for a different segment, but even so it is a conscious marketing decision.
As long as Sony does its marketing well, PS3 should fly. The underlying product is solid enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
an article a couple of months ago in OXM outlined it exactly... oh I wish I would have saved it :devilish:.... Pretty sure it said the retailer makes $10/game.

A Forbes article reported retailer cut as roughly 20%, around $12 that is. Close enough.
In case of first/second party titles, the publisher+developer should get around $35 to $40 per game, which is still a lot of money.
 
Everything you mentioned is a part of marketing.
Pricing and game library are marketing? Strictly speaking you're right, but when people here say marketing they're actually talking about promotion.

I think PARANOiA is right. The promotion hasn't been bad at all, and MS hasn't done anything better. It's everything else that is hurting the PS3, including hardware decisions. Maybe those decisions will help sales later on (I doubt it, but who knows), but this discussion is about past and present sales of PS3 vs. the competition, and for that hardware is big part of the problem.
 
Pricing and game library are marketing? Strictly speaking you're right, but when people here say marketing they're actually talking about promotion

Then that's their problem. Marketing does include pricing according to most (all ?) Marketing 101 classes.

I think PARANOiA is right. The promotion hasn't been bad at all, and MS hasn't done anything better. It's everything else that is hurting the PS3, including hardware decisions. Maybe those decisions will help sales later on (I doubt it, but who knows), but this discussion is about past and present sales of PS3 vs. the competition, and for that hardware is big part of the problem.

Promotion is just one small part of marketing (near the end stage). Also Sony didn't do any promotion until recently compared to 360.


EDIT: Granted, they have improved a lot since the announcements of the $399 SKU (especially early November). So let's see how much mileage they gain, and how far they intend to drive this. Also, please remember that PS3 is doing pretty well in Europe, and Japan is starting to show some life. Still too early to tell though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, you might want to read up on marketing before criticizing or :LOL: at it. ;-)

Don't insult me when you don't even know what I do for a full time job.

What you've done is broaden two distinct areas that both large companies I work with separate - Sales and Marketing. Your earlier comments describing what is more realistically a "branding" problem, so I noted those. Changing the goal posts to a text-book definition when I rebutted your statement doesn't make you clever. Telling me I don't know what marketing is, when part of my job is pricing and developing pricing models, is insulting.
 
For all intents and purposes, Gears of War was an FPS; it appealed to the same demographic in any event. I know some people will find fault with that logic, but in my mind honestly I lump Gears and Halo into the same pile. Even moreso than I would lump Lost Planet into it, which is similar to Gears. There's just something about the artistic 'style' of Gears than is extremely similar to the modern FPS genre.

Mass Effect has something special going for it, and indeed it's a title - in fact the only title I can think of - that I will truly be missing this season due to my console choice.

Maybe in your opinion but there is a massive gameplay barrier saying "hell no" to your logic. Halo and Gears of War don't play the same, probably because there is a significant change in the game camera. They are action games (but so is everything that sales for the most part, even on the PS3) but that is extremely open. I find you doing this is entirely unfair, and to be honest completely bullshit. If you're just going to "lump" everything together then there is no point at all for discussion.

I thought I'd address this first, even though it comes after the below.

There's two different conversations going on here: hardware sales, and software sales. But I don't think anyone is specifically discussing software selling hardware at this time - the software discussion is on the software sales themselves. And in that context, it doesn't matter if x amount of the population considers the PS3 over-priced or a waste of time or whatever else... we're talking about the percentage of the population that already owns it, and why they didn't buy whatever titles in question. And to that...

Just the wrong audience? I'm not sure why certain games are doing poor even when considered relative to the PS3 user base size. Makes me wonder why people bought a PS3 in the first place, was it really because they wanted a next generation console from Sony that bad, or were they seriously thinking of games only two or three years down the line? Makes no sense. I think there are some novel concepts for the PS3, but until those come to fruition I just don't see the point in buying one if you're not going to buy the games out now or in the immediate future.

I *do* think it not being an 'FPS' (used loosely) or being 'too' original has something to do with it. For example, let's pretend Ratchet and Clank were on 360, and same for Uncharted. Would you buy these yourself? Why or why not? Do you consider them 'excellent' games?

Again, there are two discussions going on here, and for my part I'm involved strictly in the software sales discussion for the time being.

I would most certainly buy the new Ratchet and Clank, in a heart beat (its my style, but then again, I don't own a Xbox 360 or any console at all at this point). I would also think it would be at least a million unit pusher on the Xbox 360. Uncharted I have not followed enough to know about to make an opinion on, so forgive me there.
 
Maybe in your opinion but there is a massive gameplay barrier saying "hell no" to your logic. Halo and Gears of War don't play the same, probably because there is a significant change in the game camera. They are action games (but so is everything that sales for the most part, even on the PS3) but that is extremely open. I find you doing this is entirely unfair, and to be honest completely bullshit. If you're just going to "lump" everything together then there is no point at all for discussion.

The same folk buying Gears are the same folk buying the FPS'... and for the same reasons as well. If you won't accept that though and my blurring of the lines based on observation, I'll revise my use of 'FPS' to simply be "games of a certain theme;" in this case brave soldiers fighting horrific creatures. But there are any number of popular themes in Western gaming right now, none of which are addressed by R&C or Uncharted. Assassins Creed is one that hits much closer to the mark, which is why I think it'll have sales that are better. Hell there have been some Assassin's Creed ads that make my girlfriend want it...

Just the wrong audience? I'm not sure why certain games are doing poor even when considered relative to the PS3 user base size. Makes me wonder why people bought a PS3 in the first place, was it really because they wanted a next generation console from Sony that bad, or were they seriously thinking of games only two or three years down the line? Makes no sense. I think there are some novel concepts for the PS3, but until those come to fruition I just don't see the point in buying one if you're not going to buy the games out now or in the immediate future.

There are games to be bought. But that's different than saying *every* game should be bought, regardless of its individual excellence. For what it's worth, my preferences lie more towards Warhawk than with Halo, for example. So to me, there are worthy games on the PS3. But I certainly wouldn't think that the norm or wish to impose that worldview on those who would opt for Halo instead.

I would most certainly buy the new Ratchet and Clank, in a heart beat (its my style, but then again, I don't own a Xbox 360 or any console at all at this point). I would also think it would be at least a million unit pusher on the Xbox 360. Uncharted I have not followed enough to know about to make an opinion on, so forgive me there.

And there's the irony. Those who would most be drawn to the title, are presently not owners of the system. And for any price over $200, I doubt they would become owners of the system based soley on it either. For better or for worse it's the 25+ crowd essentially calling the shots in terms of what is deemed worthy of expenditure, and although I'm sure there are those among that would love to own R&C, for the most part interests and dollar priorities lie elsewhere.
 
Pricing and game library are marketing? Strictly speaking you're right, but when people here say marketing they're actually talking about promotion.

I think PARANOiA is right. The promotion hasn't been bad at all, and MS hasn't done anything better. It's everything else that is hurting the PS3, including hardware decisions. Maybe those decisions will help sales later on (I doubt it, but who knows), but this discussion is about past and present sales of PS3 vs. the competition, and for that hardware is big part of the problem.

Well pricing is a result of wrong marketing dcisions. You have to evaluate competitors, consumer preferences, customer loyalty etc then introduce the right product with the right pricing and other characteristics based on that evaluation. Then you have to promote it in a way that the consumer will understand the benefits/utilization and that the price reflects this. Pricing and promotion strategy should take into consideration what competitors have in store and how the consumer reacts in the environment of the specific market.


In general my opinion

The problem Sony did initially was to introduce the PS3 under a high price, with practically almost nothing that will put the features and capabilities of the console into use. At the same time 360 was filled with a huge games at lower price. Europe was also getting bundles with GEARS OF WAR IN NOVEMBER. And NOT ONLY. Many kinds of bundles were available to satisfy different kind of tastes! Then there were Sony's vague advertising campaigns that didnt make clear to the consumer what the PS3 does and what its games were or would be. They completely ignore that the first thing people will notice are games. The majority of people had no idea of the functions. They didnt know about firmware updates, they didnt know about Playstation Network, they didnt know the new but few games that came with it (they are familiar with PS2's succesful franshises. What is Motorstorm? Resistance? Gengi??????), they didnt know about the motion control, they had no idea what blu ray is, they had no idea of online gaming. They didnt know what made the price so high.

I still find PS3 owners that have no idea of the offerings PS3 has! And I am talking about important things such as Playstation Network too! There are people that dont read the manual. They want to plug in and play directly. Even the manual didnt explain things clearly.

Consumers saw people doing crazy things in the This is Living ads, they saw people doing tricks with cups and a woman speaking at the backround about Cell. Consumers arent geeks. Dont explain Cell as if you are showing a documentary God damn it. People dont understand tech terms.
There were some awesome efforts too but they should have been more frequent.

Sony did the opposite with the PS2. Before the console was even released they had tons of games to show, and ads were apparent everywhere, speaking clearly about the experience with the console. A common thing marketing campaigns are aiming is to give emphasis on the experience. They didnt make the experience clear with the PS3.

And when the console was released all they saw was a black box with a high price tag and a 360 with lots of awesome games sold cheaper. Nobody wants a black box that has no content or unnoticable features. They want a console instead and 360 was it. Additionally even people who wanted to get the console, couldnt get it! That price was burning holes in people's wallets.

Sony now does things perfectly. The problem is, they did it kind of late. Hopefully people will begin to notice what the PS3 is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The same folk buying Gears are the same folk buying the FPS'... and for the same reasons as well. If you won't accept that though and my blurring of the lines based on observation, I'll revise my use of 'FPS' to simply be "games of a certain theme;" in this case brave soldiers fighting horrific creatures. But there are any number of popular themes in Western gaming right now, none of which are addressed by R&C or Uncharted. Assassins Creed is one that hits much closer to the mark, which is why I think it'll have sales that are better. Hell there have been some Assassin's Creed ads that make my girlfriend want it...

I agree with you on Gears. I was playing it for the first time five minutes ago. The controls are very similar to an fps, with added cover mechanics, and you can see your guy a bit on screen. The same crowd that loves fps is for the most part the same crowd that goes for Gears.
 
I agree with you on Gears. I was playing it for the first time five minutes ago. The controls are very similar to an fps, with added cover mechanics, and you can see your guy a bit on screen. The same crowd that loves fps is for the most part the same crowd that goes for Gears.
It will be interestng to see how well Uncharted sells since it uses similar control schemes
 
Back
Top