I originally predicted 60-80M over a year ago, with Sony being very strong in Europe and Japan and putting up a good fight in NA. I think they will end up similar to what fearsome sees, but I selected <40M (mainly because 40-60 is too broad). As for 10 years... all Sony PS products are 10 year products according to Kaz. How well the PS3 sells in years 6-10 depends on how well it sells in years 1-5. Unless the PS3 becomes the defacto Sony BDR chipset at some point.
Prediction Poll: How many PS3's will be sold?
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
Coherence.
People will have different opinions. The information they have been exposed to, the weight they give various forms of data and press, their area of interest, how long they have been exposed to the industry and various factors, and their own preferences and (sometimes) irrational biases will impact their opinion.
I think we would all agree, to certain degrees, we are impacted by all these. The key is, when relevant data is present, to minimize the more subjective elements and give the data a fair shake. True, it needs to be looked at in the big picture, and no single snapshot will give us an absolute barometer. I know some people disagree with the weight, or lack of weight, I give various data. They have a right to that opinion, and I can be wrongheaded. We all can be.
But the key, I think, is coherence. Is there a thought process, a logical one, that has generated your conclusion? And on the offensive side, when being critical does your own foundation for criticism have merit outside of "what if?" Are you providing an alternative, do your points form a rational theme or alternative? Or is it bickering sprinkled with "tough talk", making it more of a personal issue (your immature... you grossly misinterpret everything [but I won't give you a competing framework]... etc)
I guess we can look at it two ways. We can be shocked that a handful of people think Unreal Tournament 3 and Uncharted will best Halo 3 and Madden in sales... or we can be surprised so many people follow the market numbers and realize that in such a poll there was only 3 viable answers. And for those who disagree we can just chalk it up to industry newness or being really excited about a title--and that they are a very small percentage of people here.
Time is the great vindicator.
Bw, I would LOVE it if B3D had an ,"Official Poster Position" forum where each member had their own thread where only THEY could post. They could put all their votes and predictions there. I think in threads people can say one thing, and 3 years later it is forgotten. A good thing in many ways... but also some context to a poster is relevant.
People will have different opinions. The information they have been exposed to, the weight they give various forms of data and press, their area of interest, how long they have been exposed to the industry and various factors, and their own preferences and (sometimes) irrational biases will impact their opinion.
I think we would all agree, to certain degrees, we are impacted by all these. The key is, when relevant data is present, to minimize the more subjective elements and give the data a fair shake. True, it needs to be looked at in the big picture, and no single snapshot will give us an absolute barometer. I know some people disagree with the weight, or lack of weight, I give various data. They have a right to that opinion, and I can be wrongheaded. We all can be.
But the key, I think, is coherence. Is there a thought process, a logical one, that has generated your conclusion? And on the offensive side, when being critical does your own foundation for criticism have merit outside of "what if?" Are you providing an alternative, do your points form a rational theme or alternative? Or is it bickering sprinkled with "tough talk", making it more of a personal issue (your immature... you grossly misinterpret everything [but I won't give you a competing framework]... etc)
I guess we can look at it two ways. We can be shocked that a handful of people think Unreal Tournament 3 and Uncharted will best Halo 3 and Madden in sales... or we can be surprised so many people follow the market numbers and realize that in such a poll there was only 3 viable answers. And for those who disagree we can just chalk it up to industry newness or being really excited about a title--and that they are a very small percentage of people here.
Time is the great vindicator.
Bw, I would LOVE it if B3D had an ,"Official Poster Position" forum where each member had their own thread where only THEY could post. They could put all their votes and predictions there. I think in threads people can say one thing, and 3 years later it is forgotten. A good thing in many ways... but also some context to a poster is relevant.
Sony will be idiots if they dont reduce price by a considerable amount soon. If you dont get people to know your product soon by increasing your userbase as much as possible in the beginning, it will be overshadowed by the other better known products.
Currently 360 and Wii are gaining much more recognition while the PS3 loses it. 360 is getting more and more games that can spread their existence from mouth to mouth, Wii is getting recognition with tremendous sales alone, while PS3's games and features are overshadowed.
If people see 360's and Wii's everywhere they will like what the see in these consoles. PS3 is currently overshadowed and unseen. Mostly because of price and Sony's overconfidence. I am 100% sure that more than half of the PS3 owners, dont even know the features in their console. Let alone the total of gamers and potential gamers in the industry. Sony simply lets things work by themselves which is so not how Sony used to act in the past.
They also seem to forget what made PS1 such a success and they are repeating SEGA's mistakes with the Saturn. I used to express these worries soem time before it was unveiled in 2005, but unfortunately they are proving correct now.
Lets see what Sony did with the PS1 and what they are doing now.
With PS1 they followed the path of a developer friendly console, and a continuous support of libraries. On the other hand Sega chose a complicated architecture at the last moment with unfinished libraries, got a probably more powerful console in the market that was almost never exploited right if at all. Bad ports, worse looking titles, great but short arcade games.
Sony isnt following PS1's example.
Cost of production. PS1 was much cheaper to produce than the Saturn. The Saturn was very complicated and too expensive. This did not allow for good enough price reductions while Sony could jump to price reduction easilly and thats what they did. All what Sony did was to announce a big price reduction at E3. Sega was forced to make a reduction that not only wasnt enough, it wasnt sustainable by the company's financial position. It generated huge losses and sales werent much improved either! It simply didnt have the games.
Sony's BR may have a strategic cause and helped Sony push BR, but it increases cost a lot. Every component in it is more expensive. They are left with the most expensive console while others can make bigger price cuts.
Sony lost the opportunity to maintain exclusivity for Assasin's Creed and other exclusive-bound titles. Sony was the exact opposite with the PS1. Now MS is doing what Sony used to do in the past. Made Gears of War an exclusive game and possibly Bioshock. Bizzare Studios is making PGR exclusively for the 360, and lets not forget Alan Wake and Mass Effect.
The PS3 is filled with potential to become the best console experience, yet they arent helping it reach the potential by performing well in the market. If it does not perform well in the market who is going to exploit the potential? Nobody.
I wonder why Sony hasnt made any considerable price reduction after all this time. Their decision to reduce the price by only 100 and replace it by a more expensive PS3 doesnt sound like Sony. Why not help your console sell much? 20GB of extra storage arent as valuable as a price reduction to the consumer.
They want to buy a game with the console not extra storage. I dont know what kind of logic works behind their new tactics but they are stupid.
Probably the restructure of their management is to blame I am not sure. Its like they ommit completely the long term results and only think about short term gains. As far as I remember Sony never acted this way with the PS1 or the PS2. Their current tactic is illogical in the console market. If you dont set the right bases at the beginning the product is bound to fail. And if it doesnt do well while the competitors are doing much much better you are increasing chances of being excluded in the future and that your next product will also not do well. Better promote and boost your product in the beginning and not maximize your short term profits than move slowly. They should aim for long term maximization of profits. The others are moving faster already. I think that it is too late now
Currently 360 and Wii are gaining much more recognition while the PS3 loses it. 360 is getting more and more games that can spread their existence from mouth to mouth, Wii is getting recognition with tremendous sales alone, while PS3's games and features are overshadowed.
If people see 360's and Wii's everywhere they will like what the see in these consoles. PS3 is currently overshadowed and unseen. Mostly because of price and Sony's overconfidence. I am 100% sure that more than half of the PS3 owners, dont even know the features in their console. Let alone the total of gamers and potential gamers in the industry. Sony simply lets things work by themselves which is so not how Sony used to act in the past.
They also seem to forget what made PS1 such a success and they are repeating SEGA's mistakes with the Saturn. I used to express these worries soem time before it was unveiled in 2005, but unfortunately they are proving correct now.
Lets see what Sony did with the PS1 and what they are doing now.
With PS1 they followed the path of a developer friendly console, and a continuous support of libraries. On the other hand Sega chose a complicated architecture at the last moment with unfinished libraries, got a probably more powerful console in the market that was almost never exploited right if at all. Bad ports, worse looking titles, great but short arcade games.
Sony isnt following PS1's example.
Cost of production. PS1 was much cheaper to produce than the Saturn. The Saturn was very complicated and too expensive. This did not allow for good enough price reductions while Sony could jump to price reduction easilly and thats what they did. All what Sony did was to announce a big price reduction at E3. Sega was forced to make a reduction that not only wasnt enough, it wasnt sustainable by the company's financial position. It generated huge losses and sales werent much improved either! It simply didnt have the games.
Sony's BR may have a strategic cause and helped Sony push BR, but it increases cost a lot. Every component in it is more expensive. They are left with the most expensive console while others can make bigger price cuts.
Sony lost the opportunity to maintain exclusivity for Assasin's Creed and other exclusive-bound titles. Sony was the exact opposite with the PS1. Now MS is doing what Sony used to do in the past. Made Gears of War an exclusive game and possibly Bioshock. Bizzare Studios is making PGR exclusively for the 360, and lets not forget Alan Wake and Mass Effect.
The PS3 is filled with potential to become the best console experience, yet they arent helping it reach the potential by performing well in the market. If it does not perform well in the market who is going to exploit the potential? Nobody.
I wonder why Sony hasnt made any considerable price reduction after all this time. Their decision to reduce the price by only 100 and replace it by a more expensive PS3 doesnt sound like Sony. Why not help your console sell much? 20GB of extra storage arent as valuable as a price reduction to the consumer.
They want to buy a game with the console not extra storage. I dont know what kind of logic works behind their new tactics but they are stupid.
Probably the restructure of their management is to blame I am not sure. Its like they ommit completely the long term results and only think about short term gains. As far as I remember Sony never acted this way with the PS1 or the PS2. Their current tactic is illogical in the console market. If you dont set the right bases at the beginning the product is bound to fail. And if it doesnt do well while the competitors are doing much much better you are increasing chances of being excluded in the future and that your next product will also not do well. Better promote and boost your product in the beginning and not maximize your short term profits than move slowly. They should aim for long term maximization of profits. The others are moving faster already. I think that it is too late now
But there is nothing stoping MS or Sony (or N for that matter...) from selling the old gen HW after nextgen hits the shelf.
Microsoft isn't a hardware company at heart. I don't see it making a business out of selling low-end consoles, especially as they have to hire others for manufacturing and logistics. As soon as the Xb360 ceases to be a viable platform, it'll get dropped.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
That's nonsense IMO.
MS will continue to sell X360 as long as it is profitable, which will be for quite some time after their new system launches.
I'm sticking to my original prediction of Sony taking 45% of a 180 million console market. This would put them right around 80 million units.
My confidence has been shaken quite a lot lately, but my crystal ball is still showing me a $400 PS3 next year, some traction on Blu Ray, and more stellar games that take advantage of the system like MGS4, FFXIII etc...
Eventually the PS3 will be $300 and then $200 and many gamers (especially in Japan) will still want their favorite franchises.
MS will continue to sell X360 as long as it is profitable, which will be for quite some time after their new system launches.
I'm sticking to my original prediction of Sony taking 45% of a 180 million console market. This would put them right around 80 million units.
My confidence has been shaken quite a lot lately, but my crystal ball is still showing me a $400 PS3 next year, some traction on Blu Ray, and more stellar games that take advantage of the system like MGS4, FFXIII etc...
Eventually the PS3 will be $300 and then $200 and many gamers (especially in Japan) will still want their favorite franchises.
Agreed on this point and i'll be in the same boat. But at the same time, I won't be buying anything on it that isn't exclusive. In other words, it will be a nitch console for me. I'm convinced devs will still get a better product on xb360 games than ps3 mostly based on ease of dev and time. Thus, multiplat games will still be purchased on xb360 primarily. If that happens, I imagine profits will be squeezed on Sony's gaming division and thus, may force their hand with ps4 early (2010?) and prematurely kill ps3.
-Agreed on the general concept that console makers will make the HW as long as there is profit to be made.
Many good points in this post but I wanted to emphasize this one.
I've been harping on Sony for a good long while on their decisions with ps3. I think Sony felt that after ps1, they had the market locked down and basicly, wherever they wanted to push it, the market would follow. After proving that viewpoint correct, they followed the same again with ps3.
The circumstances were much different this gen though, but they chose to ignore them and in fact, push further on their own.
They not only kept the "difficult to develop" mindset as "ok" but then decided to add "expensive" and "late" to the list as well. While they were at it, they decided crucial exclusives weren't necessary either.
Essentially, they let this gen slip through their fingers by their own doing.
Hopefully they will learn from these mistakes and humble themselves a bit and take ps4 to the top.
One of these will be a given though, ps4 will be "easy" to dev for comparitively speaking by being an extension of ps3. It should also be inexpensive by not forcing a new media down gamers throats. Thirdly, if they have any sense at all, they will launch either early, or at the same time as the competition. Games would also help their cause for establishing ps4 as the lead console of the gen.
review:
ps1
easy to dev
cheap
low BOM
exclusives
launch 1st (or same)
ps2
difficult to dev
cheap
low BOM
exclusives
launch 1st (or same)
ps3
difficult to dev
expensive
high BOM
lost exclusives
launch last (or same)
ps4
easy to dev
cheap
low BOM
exclusives?
launch 1st (or same)?
The cheaper the Xb360 gets, the more viable it is. At $125 it'll be way more viable than it is today. Profit comes in many forms. The Xb360 is MS's route into the living room; a cheap Xb360 is MS's chance to sell profitable movies and games and other services to a wide audience.
Neither PS2 nor PS1 launched first, I'll be really surprised if PS4 shows up first.
I don't see difficulty of development as a big issue despite being raised often. As you said if Sony continue on the CELL road at least people will likely be more familiar with the hardware. But that doesn't mean it will be easy compared to Xbox 3.
Exclusive software is clearly important but is not limited to games. I think the topic of price is much more complex than being expensive or cheap.
In the end, I find the notion of "Sony should learn from their past mistakes" quite funny. Everybody should do so of course. But the business is changing, evolving. The war isn't simple as having GTA exclusive anymore. Wii alone should prove that.
By the time the war is over, any of the mistakes you think Sony made this gen may come as the right choice as unlikely as it may seem. (Things like loosing 3rd party exclusives is not really a choice given the install base)
So my only prediction about this gen is that at least 55 of the 77 voters (at the time of this post) will be wrong.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Exactly.
Everybody remembers Sony's intention with the PS3 because they blame it for their currently struggles (Blu-Ray), but the intentions of MS are rarely mentioned.
MS is spending this generation making sure that millions of people have the hardware capable of purchasing content from them, and getting the 'front of the curve' familiar with purchasing content through MS points and microtransactions and then like. They are getting people familiar with the idea that spending money is as easy as pushing a button.
That's where all the real money is to be made (just like the "real" money for Sony is in Blu-Ray adoption, which is why Nintendo is the only company profiting from console sales), and MS will keep producing, selling, and supporting the 360 until the time comes where MS is trying to sell/distribute content that the 360 is no longer sufficiently capable of handling.
Why isn't the "real" money for Sony also going to come from content sales?
djskribbles
Legend
if they get it down to 399 this year, i think they will. no 399 is not low enough to appeal to the casual market yet, but that means 299 is not far away (possibly next year?) and that seems to be the sweet spot. who knows, we may even see 199 by the end of 2009.
i voted 60-80.
PS2 had a relatively low BOM. Compared to it's main competition (xbox1). Ps1 also had a low BOM (initially selling for $100 over cost)
It also launched first as comparing it to DC is a false comparisions for many reasons.
Same for ps1. It launched roughly equal to Saturn give or take a handful of retail outlets that jumped streetdate on Sega's command.
And PS1 was easy to dev for, relatively speaking. (see saturn) I still remember Namco stating 6 months to port the arcade Ridgeracer for launch.
Regarding "easy to dev"...
The term is a relative one. How easy or difficult it is to develop a game. In my mind it's simple, to get to x level of performance, how much time/effort does it take? If it takes longer on machine X than machine Y to get the same level of performance, then machine Y is easier to dev for than machine X.
Sony would be fools not to take advantage of an easily scaled CELL architecture by timing the launch correctly along with their developer efforts to come out of the gate flying with ps4.
2010-2011
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I voted 80-100...
I believe that it will pick up its pace in the long run, when the Sony eventually releases "sexier" and smaller PSThree it will sell large amounts, but I think it will pick up steam before that. FF13 will make it sell good amounts in Japan permanently. GT5 and some other titles will make impact in the west. 2008 will be much better year than this one and 2009 will be very good.
The overall growth of the industry will help them to end up somewhere between 80-100 million units, however the lackluster start makes it very hard for them to hit over 100 million or nearly impossible to repeat PS2 numbers, as they'd have to out do the PS2 monthly numbers at some point by a significant margin to make up for the deficit they have "gathered" since the PS3 lauch. And not only for a month or two, but sustained higher than PS2-sales for long periods of time, that I find unlikely. I also don't believe that PS3 will have longer lifespan than PS2 has.
Blu-ray is still a question mark, how long until it surpasses DVD, or will that ever happen? I don't know and that plays some part in PS3's success... So it's hard to say, but yeah 80-100 is my quess.
I believe that it will pick up its pace in the long run, when the Sony eventually releases "sexier" and smaller PSThree it will sell large amounts, but I think it will pick up steam before that. FF13 will make it sell good amounts in Japan permanently. GT5 and some other titles will make impact in the west. 2008 will be much better year than this one and 2009 will be very good.
The overall growth of the industry will help them to end up somewhere between 80-100 million units, however the lackluster start makes it very hard for them to hit over 100 million or nearly impossible to repeat PS2 numbers, as they'd have to out do the PS2 monthly numbers at some point by a significant margin to make up for the deficit they have "gathered" since the PS3 lauch. And not only for a month or two, but sustained higher than PS2-sales for long periods of time, that I find unlikely. I also don't believe that PS3 will have longer lifespan than PS2 has.
Blu-ray is still a question mark, how long until it surpasses DVD, or will that ever happen? I don't know and that plays some part in PS3's success... So it's hard to say, but yeah 80-100 is my quess.
You must've missed the ridiculous amount of money Nintendo makes from the Virtual console.
