Prediction Poll: How many PS3's will be sold?

[Arwin]

Far too early to say. All the people buying a Wii now could be buying a 360/PS3 next year, and/or a PS3 two years later, if you know what I mean. I'm going to guess that still a lot of people who had a Playstation previously will go for a Playstation this generation, because the machine is very good, compatible with PS2 and PS1, and I'm figuring it's really just a matter of price and the PS2 still sufficing. The people that have been buying consoles so far aren't a good indication of how the market will develop in two years (though that goes slightly less for the Wii, that one to me is very obviously hitting outside the GameCube market, but at the same time it's also hitting outside the market previous generation of console's altogether).

So for now I'm going to expect the PS3 to hit >100 eventually.

 

[Phil]

I think they'll sell a lot, simply because I think PS3 will be around for longer than most people are willing to assume.

If anything, the PS2 has proven that it's still happy to sell for over 7 years, still beating many of the next gen consoles after their debut. Given this, I think Sony is willing to let PS3 live for at least 7 years - probably well into what ever Microsoft launches in 4-5 or so years. If this makes sense and will be good for their business - I guess time will show. If they get to around 60 million or more before Microsoft makes plans official to release a new console, I think they could do quite well with such a business model. WIth development costs steadily increasing, I can see less devs inclines to jump onto even more powerful consoles in such a short time - so being on a platform with an extra 3 years of life in it, might be quite attractive. Especially when considering how profitable the PS2 has become for devs.

It must have hurt Sony to have to bring out the PS3, given how strong PS2 sales still are. At the end, I think PS3 will be around for a very long time, thus will sell quite a lot (if they manage to bring down the price slowly)...

 

[assen]

If anything, the PS2 has proven that it's still happy to sell for over 7 years, still beating many of the next gen consoles after their debut.

The PS2 is happy to sell even today because it was the logical choice for developers last generation, and there are many quality games for it, and still smaller developer and B-teams are pumping out games for it (althoug they are quickly shifting to the "shovelware" category)... not because it is called "Playstation", as you and many other posters seem to imply. If the Playstation 3 remains a Gamecube in spirit - inferior ports, some first-party gem here and there (btw we still haven't seen one - 80-ish Gamerankings games don't count as "gems", Gamecube was much better in this regard), modest market share - it won't sell well in its seventh year. A console only sells well in its seventh year if it sells 100 mln in its first six - you can call this law after me ;-)

 

[TheChefO]

40-60. That's what the simExchange predicts currently

Hm, that's interesting - why do you think so? The PS3 has an interesting hardware security feature where you can get one of the SPUs to execute only encrypted code, and control what's happening on the entire Cell. It will take a combination of several very stupid bugs to overcome this, and even then it won't be easy to exploit commercially - see the current situation with the 360 exploit, for example, which requires swapping firmwares, soldering, FPGA-based devices etc.

Modded 360 and Wii are already common in China thanks to DVD.

Well, looks like I was wrong on this one. I had no idea they already cracked xb360 and Wii.

In that case, I'd say it's an even stronger probability that xb360 or Wii would sell to these poorer countries than ps3 as ps3 will always be more expensive and will likely continue to have a smaller library.

 

[TheChefO]

The PS2 is happy to sell even today because it was the logical choice for developers last generation, and there are many quality games for it, and still smaller developer and B-teams are pumping out games for it (althoug they are quickly shifting to the "shovelware" category)... not because it is called "Playstation", as you and many other posters seem to imply. If the Playstation 3 remains a Gamecube in spirit - inferior ports, some first-party gem here and there (btw we still haven't seen one - 80-ish Gamerankings games don't count as "gems", Gamecube was much better in this regard), modest market share - it won't sell well in its seventh year. A console only sells well in its seventh year if it sells 100 mln in its first six - you can call this law after me ;-)

QFT

Glad to see someone else gets it.

 

[TheChefO]

That's annual growth of 7% over 10 years. It's not that aggressive.

It'll hard for Nintendo to compete in these emerging markets. Whereas Sony and Microsoft have local operations in place already, pushing their extensive lines of products, Nintendo will need to build all the infrastructure just to support a couple. I also don't see an audience for the Wii. We're talking about societies where gaming hasn't entered the mainstream culture.

Good point on N expanding into these markets but I disagree with the rate of expansion, specifically for traditional consoles (ps3, xb360).

 

[Phil]

The PS2 is happy to sell even today because it was the logical choice for developers last generation, and there are many quality games for it, and still smaller developer and B-teams are pumping out games for it (althoug they are quickly shifting to the "shovelware" category)... not because it is called "Playstation", as you and many other posters seem to imply. If the Playstation 3 remains a Gamecube in spirit - inferior ports, some first-party gem here and there (btw we still haven't seen one - 80-ish Gamerankings games don't count as "gems", Gamecube was much better in this regard), modest market share - it won't sell well in its seventh year. A console only sells well in its seventh year if it sells 100 mln in its first six - you can call this law after me ;-)

The point was less to highlight why the PS2 is selling, but that it is selling (and that, longer than any other console has) and has proven to be a very lucrative market for developers.

Each generation so far as proven to be a huge financial undertaking, not only for the platform vendors but especially publishers and developers, that have to grow accustomed to new hardware, new libraries, new approaches, make new assets etc. Big financial undertaking also mean higher risks - especially when development taps into the multi milions and extremly large teams. We've already had talks before this generation shift as to how publishers are meeting Microsofts early entry with the Xbox360 - that it's too early for the industry etc.

Begin to imagine what it'll be like next generation!

When there were reports stating that Sony wants the PS3 to have a life span of no less than 10 years - I don't think they were joking. While Microsoft may be already slowly gearing up for a new Xbox sometime before 2010, I think Sony will be still happy to sell their PS3 a lot longer if the market allows. For that to happen, they obviously have to get the price down, get more software outthere to gain those sales that are still lacking at the moment. If they can achieve that before Microsoft gears up for the next Xbox, I think the PS3 platform could prove to be a very lucrative market down the line. How many developers would even want to rush into next (next) gen development if there are still plenty of reasons to support both the xbox360 and PS3?

Most money is made towards the end of a generation, simply because the hardware is slowly tapped out, it's well known, the market is large and a lot of pre-existing assets and libraries can be re-used by developers which in turn makes development cheaper and earnings higher. Clearly, as development costs are rising and becoming more expensive by the generation, less will be willing to jump onto the next generation early, unless they must.

Not saying that Sony will achieve those numbers or do it this way, but think these are some valid points to consider. The race hasn't been concluded yet and the X360 hasn't sold beyond Xbox1 numbers yet. Sony can still pick up on sales quickly and if they do, I'm willing to bet the PS3 will stick around for a long time...

 

[liolio]

I never understand why Sony would make money for ten years, while MS (who is a well know known company and that is not in charity business...) would push a new system with all the costs that come along R&D, sell system at los, etc. while they will make money too.

I wait for explanation, I 've heard that so many time, do somebody has proofs that MS is a so dumb company?

 

[AlphaWolf]

I never understand why Sony would make money for ten years, while MS (who is a well know known company and that is not on charity business...) would push a new system with all the costs that come along R&D, sell system at los, etc. while they will make money too.

I wait for explanation, I 've heard that so many time, do somebody has proofs that MS is a so dumb company?

MS isn't in it for just 10 years. I'm sure there is a limit to the financial beating they are willing to take, but they apparently didn't get there in the past, and things are looking up for their entertainment sector.

 

[liolio]

MS isn't in it for just 10 years. I'm sure there is a limit to the financial beating they are willing to take, but they apparently didn't get there in the past, and things are looking up for their entertainment sector.

I don't see your point, we all know that MS has take huge loss with the xbox1 and that they're still not profitable with the 360, but it seems it will happen.
I don't understand the logic behind your post, Ms will squizz every last bit of money they can out of the 360==> they have loss to cover.

There's no logical reasons for MS do stop the 360 while they're making money with it.

The MS want 4 year long console cycle is complete non sense... It's closer in fact to stealth trolling than anything if you ask me...

 

[AlphaWolf]

Who says MS wants a 4 year cycle? They want living room dominance, once they have that, then you'll get what MS wants.

 

[liolio]

Who says MS wants a 4 year cycle? They want living room dominance, once they have that, then you'll get what MS wants.

don't take personally but there quiet a lot of persons who claim here almost endlessly that Ms will push a next system in 4/5 years, just because Ms can non longer subsidize for the hardware loss on the xbox1 and stop it after 4 years.

Even if MS come with a new system in 2010 (5 years from 360 launch) they won't stop the 360 if they make money on it it would be trollishly stupid

As for the goal of MS, I know what they want, I also know what Sony wants, the fact is that I would have like an almost evenly splitted market, but due sony own mistake I can no longer ths happens....

Anyway hope my previous post didn't sound too harsh cause it wasn't personal, just get bored of hearing the old same thing.

 

[jb]

I don't see your point, we all know that MS has take huge loss with the xbox1 and that they're still not profitable with the 360

Hmm I remember reading here that they finally makign some more with the 360 now? (well minus the 1 billion for the red ring issue)? Maybe that was not an case or conflicting notes....

 

[TheChefO]

Hmm I remember reading here that they finally makign some more with the 360 now? (well minus the 1 billion for the red ring issue)? Maybe that was not an case or conflicting notes....

I remember reading a year ago they were making a small profit off each xb360 sold at the time.

I think the constant repairs have hammered the division and I think the desire to bundle the losses into one quarter is specifically to enable the division to post a profit for the following quarter.

I'm quite sure with all the software they plan on selling this year, they will be in the black.

---

Regarding the projected 4-5 year lifecycle of xb360, I think MS will be in dangerous territory here in the next few years. MS will have to be ready to launch whenever Sony does and preferably before, but they will not want to eat into the profits at the back end of the xb360 gen. They will also not have the luxury of expanding their architecture like Sony will for ps3 into ps4.

My guess is MS will prepare for 2010.

If Sony is ontrack to deliver ps4 by that time (dont be shocked!), MS will continue their plan and deliver on schedule. IF Sony isn't planning on delivering in 2010 and instead are looking at 2011/2012, MS will adjust the spec accordingly (likely a bump in ram size/speed and a gpu swap to the latest and greatest along with the fastest cpu they can get away with) and ship along side ps4.

Both MS and Sony learned their lessons with shipping last and it is without a doubt, the easiest way to lose a console generation. It certainly isn't the one and only factor, but it is a major contributor to success or lack of it.

 

[RobertR1]

Even if MS release a console in 2010 (more than fine by me) they'll continue to support the 360 as it'll be profitable and offset the costs of the Xbox3. The 360 wont' get a cold cut off like the Xbox1.

As for Sony, 40-60 seems right all said and done. Depends on long they plan to drag it out really. Sony might carry support of the PS3 for upto 10 years but there will be a PS4 out much sooner than that. If there isn't a PS4 out by 2011, I'll be shocked!

 

[Paul_G]

don't take personally but there quiet a lot of persons who claim here almost endlessly that Ms will push a next system in 4/5 years, just because Ms can non longer subsidize for the hardware loss on the xbox1 and stop it after 4 years.

Even if MS come with a new system in 2010 (5 years from 360 launch) they won't stop the 360 if they make money on it it would be trollishly stupid

As for the goal of MS, I know what they want, I also know what Sony wants, the fact is that I would have like an almost evenly splitted market, but due sony own mistake I can no longer ths happens....

Anyway hope my previous post didn't sound too harsh cause it wasn't personal, just get bored of hearing the old same thing.

Yeah I tried to explain the same thing to those same people a while back and it didn't come out well. It is pointless trying to infer future events from past data, when you only have 1 piece of information. For instance, one might say 'the iPhone dropped $200 in price in 2 months, in another 4 months it'll be free!'. We can get a good idea of when the next playstation is due because 2 generations running there has been approximately a 6 year gap. In the case of Xbox, we only know what they did once, and there is nothing to suggest they'll do the same again. All indications suggest MS learned their lesson from last time around and struck much more favourable deals this time, allowing them to cost reduce in a similar fashion to Sony. There is therefore no reason to believe MS won't have a similar 6 year cycle and launch in 2011, with 360 continuing to sell to people with lower budgets just as PS2 does now.

 

[TheChefO]

There is therefore no reason to believe MS won't have a similar 6 year cycle and launch in 2011, with 360 continuing to sell to people with lower budgets just as PS2 does now.

Agreed, but I don't think MS isn't planning for Sony to try and catch them with their pants down (so to speak).

Sony could pull an xbox and drop ps4 four years after ps3 and hit the 2010 window. It is afterall likely an extension of ps3 architecture and Sony learned that launching last doesn't help at all ... and if they can launch a year early (ps2) it can make all the difference.


But there is nothing stoping MS or Sony (or N for that matter... ) from selling the old gen HW after nextgen hits the shelf.

 

[Vic]

Even if MS release a console in 2010 (more than fine by me) they'll continue to support the 360 as it'll be profitable and offset the costs of the Xbox3. The 360 wont' get a cold cut off like the Xbox1.

As for Sony, 40-60 seems right all said and done. Depends on long they plan to drag it out really. Sony might carry support of the PS3 for upto 10 years but there will be a PS4 out much sooner than that. If there isn't a PS4 out by 2011, I'll be shocked!

Given that there was 6 and-a-half year gap beween the release of PS2 and PS3, I would be anything but shocked.

 

[liolio]

Agreed, but I don't think MS isn't planning for Sony to try and catch them with their pants down (so to speak).

Sony could pull an xbox and drop ps4 four years after ps3 and hit the 2010 window. It is afterall likely an extension of ps3 architecture and Sony learned that launching last doesn't help at all ... and if they can launch a year early (ps2) it can make all the difference.


But there is nothing stopping MS or Sony (or N for that matter... ) from selling the old gen HW after nextgen hits the shelf.

If Ms in a situation where they consider to launch the "720" by 2011 it means that they will have done really well this gen.

If Sony launch by 2010, I don't think Ms will be caught its pants down, but MS would better have a system that perf wise is significantly on top of its competitors.
Or have a real strong concept for its new system(xbox vista lol?).
Anyway way to early to speak about that.

 

[fearsomepirate]

At current pace, PS3 is on track be about on par with Gamecube and Xbox. However, it has an extremely high price, unlike those two consoles, so I predict that its sales will accelerate quite a bit when the price starts to fall and as the game library develops. Eventually, it will be slightly more successful than the N64 at ~40m units.