PS3 sales numbers

[quest55720]

Problem of analyzing the PS3 is that you've got to address its impact in the HD format war. PS3 is key for Sony, much more so than just as a game console.

Personally, I see many possible outcomes, and in the most probable of them, Sony wins big (as in blu-ray royalties for years to come).

It's actually sad it is priced so high, cause it's a fantastic machine.

Even if blue ray wins what does it win? A niche market until it gets taken over by the real successor to DVD. The main stream market is not even remotely close to being done with DVDs. By the time the main stream is ready to move on something with much better will be waiting.

The blue ray inclusion has cost sony the 70% market share they had in the game industry. I think it was foolish arogance that lead them down this road. They thought they could put out anything with the PS name brand and it would wipe the floor with the competition. Sony losing this gen is the best out come possible because you can bet your ass they will work twice as hard with the PS4 to get gamers back and that is a good thing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I still don't think it addresses the original point I made, though, which was that the PS3 will always be more expensive than the 360.

That's not a serious issue though. PS2 had been more expensive than XB in the UK for ages, but people are still willing to buy it. If the price differential is small enough, people will ignore it and look at the other factors. Thus even if Sony could price drop below XB360, if the XB360 has the momentum and games, it'll sell more. The big advantage Sony have is, as others have said, lots more room to price drop. The super expensive BRD drive will drop to a price comparable to the DVD drive in XB360. The major components will be shrunk. From that POV, there's not much to distinguish between the two machines price wise when the things become keep. A choice between a $200 XB360 and a $250 PS3 isn't going to be decided on price.

 

[TheChefO]

...the original point I made, though, which was that the PS3 will always be more expensive than the 360...

Though this is true, it still doesn't address the "cool/it/momentum" factor. At that point, a $50 difference won't make much diference in sales. MS is really screwing themselves up by not keeping momentum as well as price advantage.

The other head-scratcher is their inability to match their pricing/value-add moves. Historically, price moves have been matched quickly in either case. Not to mention, MS are still taking the follower role instead of a leadership role.

In xb1 gen, Sony dropped first and MS followed (sad considering xb sales that month).

This gen, MS are in a leadership position, yet they still follow on price moves. Why?

Profits are one thing, but leadership should be proactive, not reactive.

MS is really dropping the ball by not being more aggressive - IMO.

 

[Rangers]

That's not a serious issue though. PS2 had been more expensive than XB in the UK for ages, but people are still willing to buy it. If the price differential is small enough, people will ignore it and look at the other factors. Thus even if Sony could price drop below XB360, if the XB360 has the momentum and games, it'll sell more. The big advantage Sony have is, as others have said, lots more room to price drop. The super expensive BRD drive will drop to a price comparable to the DVD drive in XB360. The major components will be shrunk. From that POV, there's not much to distinguish between the two machines price wise when the things become keep. A choice between a $200 XB360 and a $250 PS3 isn't going to be decided on price.

These are all good comments, but if you just break it down it would seem PS3 will always be more expensive. If you look at the key areas:

CPU: Cell is bigger and arguably more difficult to fab than Xcpu regardless of size (we have heard a lot that Cell has a lot of logic relative to other chips, making it relatively harder to fab).

GPU: RSX is actually quite large, weighing in I believe at 260mm^2, which is bigger than Xenos+EDRAM. Xenos is still probably at least as expensive due to being split, though.

Blu Ray vs DVD: Seems DVD will have the edge here. Even when it's say, $10 vs $20, it will still be an edge.

Built in HDD in PS3: This is actually one that will take on increasing relevance as prices scale. HDD cost makes up a larger percent of the total as the total shrinks, because HDD costs dont shrink. HDD may be fairly irrelevant costwise in a $600 PS3, but it becomes pretty relevant in a $150 PS3, as Xbox 1 can tell you. Of course, two of three 360 sku's have this, but the Core should be able to plumb extreme low price points that PS3 will have trouble reaching, such as 149 and 99 dollars.

In the end I see enough there to make say, 100 difference even as we reach mass market points.

 

[Platon]

Though this is true, it still doesn't address the "cool/it/momentum" factor. At that point, a $50 difference won't make much diference in sales. MS is really screwing themselves up by not keeping momentum as well as price advantage.

The other head-scratcher is their inability to match their pricing/value-add moves. Historically, price moves have been matched quickly in either case. Not to mention, MS are still taking the follower role instead of a leadership role.

In xb1 gen, Sony dropped first and MS followed (sad considering xb sales that month).

This gen, MS are in a leadership position, yet they still follow on price moves. Why?

Profits are one thing, but leadership should be proactive, not reactive.

MS is really dropping the ball by not being more aggressive - IMO.

I agree. As time goes on the price will be going down to points where even if the PS3 is more expensive it will not matter. Concidering the price point of the PS2 right now and the chance that MS has I am quite suprized that they are not more agressive. $100 right now will have quite an impact and they will be keeping quite a distance to Sony for now. $50 to me doesn't feel like going that much closer to the mainstream prices...

 

[Rangers]

Though this is true, it still doesn't address the "cool/it/momentum" factor. At that point, a $50 difference won't make much diference in sales. MS is really screwing themselves up by not keeping momentum as well as price advantage.

The other head-scratcher is their inability to match their pricing/value-add moves. Historically, price moves have been matched quickly in either case. Not to mention, MS are still taking the follower role instead of a leadership role.

In xb1 gen, Sony dropped first and MS followed (sad considering xb sales that month).

This gen, MS are in a leadership position, yet they still follow on price moves. Why?

Profits are one thing, but leadership should be proactive, not reactive.

MS is really dropping the ball by not being more aggressive - IMO.

In an recent interview Moore claims price drops on hardware are planned in the roadmap YEARS in advance.

Now personally, I have a hard time believing that's entirely true, and that they dont adjust to match a compeititor. They showed that in the past with Xbox1.

But anyway, it may appear this 50 cut was a match of Sony's cut, but you can consider Sony's cut as not a cut at all since it's just to clear 60GB stock. In that case isn't MS leading with the first true cut?

But in the end both companies would have dropped in the 4th qaurter. I dont know that "leading" or "following" is particularly relevant. If anything, "leading" is probably bad, as it implies a certain level of struggling in the market, both with PS3 and Xbox1.

 

[Platon]

These are all good comments, but if you just break it down it would seem PS3 will always be more expensive. If you look at the key areas:

CPU: Cell is bigger and arguably more difficult to fab than Xcpu regardless of size (we have heard a lot that Cell has a lot of logic relative to other chips, making it relatively harder to fab).

GPU: RSX is actually quite large, weighing in I believe at 260mm^2, which is bigger than Xenos+EDRAM. Xenos is still probably at least as expensive due to being split, though.

Blu Ray vs DVD: Seems DVD will have the edge here. Even when it's say, $10 vs $20, it will still be an edge.

Built in HDD in PS3: This is actually one that will take on increasing relevance as prices scale. HDD cost makes up a larger percent of the total as the total shrinks, because HDD costs dont shrink. HDD may be fairly irrelevant costwise in a $600 PS3, but it becomes pretty relevant in a $150 PS3, as Xbox 1 can tell you. Of course, two of three 360 sku's have this, but the Core should be able to plumb extreme low price points that PS3 will have trouble reaching, such as 149 and 99 dollars.

In the end I see enough there to make say, 100 difference even as we reach mass market points.

Maybe, maybe not. Sure, there will most likely always be more expensive to produce a PS3, but on the other hand, if you are going to do comparisons for the consumers you should not forget that those that go for the core version they will have to have a memory card as well, which brings the cost of a PS3 and core even closer. That is why to me the move by MS is so surprizing. Because if they want to take advantage of the core, now is the time to do it. When they have reached prices were a core+mem card is like $50 or so lower than a PS3 it will be worthless. At that point price will not be the main driving force of which console you purchase..

 

[tuna]

These are all good comments, but if you just break it down it would seem PS3 will always be more expensive. If you look at the key areas:

CPU: Cell is bigger and arguably more difficult to fab than Xcpu regardless of size (we have heard a lot that Cell has a lot of logic relative to other chips, making it relatively harder to fab).

GPU: RSX is actually quite large, weighing in I believe at 260mm^2, which is bigger than Xenos+EDRAM. Xenos is still probably at least as expensive due to being split, though.

Cell and RSX(?) include some redundancy, so the size difference might not actually matter.

 

[tuna]

Built in HDD in PS3: This is actually one that will take on increasing relevance as prices scale. HDD cost makes up a larger percent of the total as the total shrinks, because HDD costs dont shrink. HDD may be fairly irrelevant costwise in a $600 PS3, but it becomes pretty relevant in a $150 PS3, as Xbox 1 can tell you. Of course, two of three 360 sku's have this, but the Core should be able to plumb extreme low price points that PS3 will have trouble reaching, such as 149 and 99 dollars.

I think the <$300 PS3 will have some kind of Solid state memory (16-32 GBbyte) instead of the HDD.

 

[Todd33]

But anyway, it may appear this 50 cut was a match of Sony's cut, but you can consider Sony's cut as not a cut at all since it's just to clear 60GB stock. In that case isn't MS leading with the first true cut?

These threads get more and more humorous.

 

[Arwin]

I'm not sure. While I in general believe that the PS3 should logically stay more expensive, disregarding for a moment pure fabrication and optimisation skill, I have some issues with this breakdown:

CPU: Cell is bigger and arguably more difficult to fab than Xcpu regardless of size (we have heard a lot that Cell has a lot of logic relative to other chips, making it relatively harder to fab).

This is probably true, though Cell has more potential to become a mass-market device in some form or other.

GPU: RSX is actually quite large, weighing in I believe at 260mm^2, which is bigger than Xenos+EDRAM. Xenos is still probably at least as expensive due to being split, though.

Yeah, this should be at the very least even.

Blu Ray vs DVD: Seems DVD will have the edge here. Even when it's say, $10 vs $20, it will still be an edge.

Yes, but probably becoming fairly insignificant in the not too distant future. Of course, when eventuelly HD devices actually become cheaper to make than DVD drives, the 360 can always include it still.

Built in HDD in PS3: This is actually one that will take on increasing relevance as prices scale. HDD cost makes up a larger percent of the total as the total shrinks, because HDD costs dont shrink. HDD may be fairly irrelevant costwise in a $600 PS3, but it becomes pretty relevant in a $150 PS3, as Xbox 1 can tell you. Of course, two of three 360 sku's have this, but the Core should be able to plumb extreme low price points that PS3 will have trouble reaching, such as 149 and 99 dollars.

On the other hand, supporting both a HDD and non-HDD SKU could be expensive. And the PS3 can live without the HDD just as well - there just aren't any SKUs out there without one at the moment. If it becomes important, then they can still create a HDD less PS3. The difference is that maybe the 360 has a few more games then that actually work without a HDD.

In the end I see enough there to make say, 100 difference even as we reach mass market points.

I just don't know what will be more cost effective eventually. Having the BluRay for more space - even if it would be used only for localisation, which I'm pretty sure the exclusive games coming out in the next few months will prove isn't the only thing it will be used for, not to mention the Strangleholds of this world of course - great potential there for future movie tie-ins! - and always being able to count on a HDD, those are things that matter too. Also the policy of Microsoft requiring specific Xbox hardware for peripherals could become an increasingly bigger perceived cost over time.

I just don't know if the difference in price is going to matter a whole lot here, really. I mean sure, the HDD mattered in the previous generation, but that was primarily because it wasn't commonly supported and online wasn't nearly as big in that generation. This generation?

I think in the end the games will still matter most, and a little bit also the previous generation's mindset. It's the xbox1 that conquered the American market, and it's the 360's job to build on that. I predict that the 360's success will be relative to the Xbox1's success in each region, but be more successful than each this time around. That means it will be a big success in the U.S., being a strong competitor to the PS3, a little less so in Europe, and much less so in Japan - at least for the next few years.

Truth is though, I have a hard time predicting things. Personally I think that the PS3 will have the software and the hardware edge over the 360 this generation soon enough, but that this will be offset by the fact that the 360 was out earlier and is cheaper. They will probably go head to head for a fair bit. The Wii is the thing that makes everything more complex though. How many people will take a Wii instead of a 360 and PS3, now, how many will still do so in two years, and how many will do so in four years?

What will happen to controllers? Soon we'll get the first PS3 bowling game, and it will be interesting to see how well the motion controls work in that game. How well will the Vision camera / new EyeToy really work for motion control? What will the new PS3 controller look like with rumble, whenever that is released (I don't expect it within 6 months). Will the 360 come with more peripherals in the near future? How successful with the GunCon3 be? Will it become a universally supported device or not?

Too many questions!

 

[TheChefO]

I dont know that "leading" or "following" is particularly relevant. If anything, "leading" is probably bad, as it implies a certain level of struggling in the market, both with PS3 and Xbox1.

Sony had a price cut with ps2 before xb1. Sales at the time with ps2 were'nt record breaking but they were much better than xb1. Following Sony's price cut was a dominating sales performance by ps2 which basicaly sealed the deal.

MS followed the price cut directly afterward (about 6months after launch) and saw decent sales increase.

Leading or following isn't a big deal, but it does show that the market is being dictated by the leader. (See ps2.)



Also, the idea that MS could introduce another pricecut soon isn't promising. In fact, that could do more damage as customers wait for the price to stabilize. If they're waiting for 65nm, then they should wait (within reason - this year) and do a full $100 off.

 

[Rangers]

And the PS3 can live without the HDD just as well - there just aren't any SKUs out there without one at the moment. If it becomes important, then they can still create a HDD less PS3. The difference is that maybe the 360 has a few more games then that actually work without a HDD.

Huh? Are you suggesting a HDD-less PS3 would be released that doesn't play the games released to date? That would be an impossibility, suicide.

Or are you suggesting that PS3 games are currently designed to not require a HDD? IMO that's never truly been settled, but I rather doubt it.

 

[Arwin]

I think you'll be surprised. Universal HDD support was confirmed very late in the day. Now of course most games will make use of it, but even still streaming from the BluRay, when done effectively, is often good enough. Sure it wouldn't play all games, but for new owners, it would only have to play the important ones, and they could be patched.

And then of course there is the alternative form of memory. Just a little bit of flash could already provide enough HDD-like memory to do the trick.

 

[Rangers]

I think you'll be surprised. Universal HDD support was confirmed very late in the day. Now of course most games will make use of it, but even still streaming from the BluRay, when done effectively, is often good enough. Sure it wouldn't play all games, but for new owners, it would only have to play the important ones, and they could be patched.

And then of course there is the alternative form of memory. Just a little bit of flash could already provide enough HDD-like memory to do the trick.

Breaking backward compatibility within one generation would be suicide..the bad press unimaginable.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Built in HDD in PS3: This is actually one that will take on increasing relevance as prices scale.

That's not a cost reduction though. Will XB360 always be cheaper than PS3? Yeah, if they always have an HDD-less model! That's a SKU choice though.

In the end I see enough there to make say, 100 difference even as we reach mass market points.

I don't really see that much difference in SKU price. More like $50. The CPU and GPU are probably pretty much tit-for-tat on pricing. What's bigger on one is simpler or more mass-produced on the other. PS3 has more in extras, HDMI, BlueTooth, and stuff, that'll add some dollars. An HDD will add probably $20 over an HDD-less model. Maybe $30. BRD will add quite a bit of money to begin with, but will drop considerably. It all depends on time frame really, but the rate of drop for Sony is larger, and by the end of the cycle they ought to be close enough to XB360's cost to make.

 

[Moonblade]

These are all good comments, but if you just break it down it would seem PS3 will always be more expensive. If you look at the key areas.

The same could be said about the first xbox (Nvidia GPU, build-in HDD, networkadaptor) and the PS2 and yet there was no significant (retail) price difference in the end.

Also, like Jov said, I think sony's experience as an electronics company is already paying off when I look at their agressive cost reduction while the 360 is still suffering from the same designflaws the first model had back in 2005.

Btw I don't think sony will ever release a HDD-less PS3 unit because it's kind of an investment to make people buy digital content on PSN.

 

[Arwin]

Breaking backward compatibility within one generation would be suicide..the bad press unimaginable.

Apart from that it's probably, as I said, solved by a little bit of Flash memory, does that also mean that Microsoft will never release any HDD only games?

In a sense they already have, releasing downloadable games that are bigger than the basic Memory unit can hold, and at the very least you'd be required to purchase a larger memory unit to be able to play them.

In Sony's very theoretical case, the backward compatibility doesn't fully count, as existing owners will still be able to play any game that's being released. It's that the newer machine wouldn't play some older games. That has, in fact, already happened before.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Apart from that it's probably, as I said, solved by a little bit of Flash memory

A fair few gigabytes worth I'd have thought. You'd need room for updates, patches, and file caching. I don't think it'd fit Sony's view of PS3, and I don't think we'll ever see a non-HDD PS3.

 

[Arwin]

A fair few gigabytes worth I'd have thought. You'd need room for updates, patches, and file caching. I don't think it'd fit Sony's view of PS3, and I don't think we'll ever see a non-HDD PS3.

As I said, in Sony's very theoretical case. Of course it won't happen. But I'm just saying that if the 360's Core unit would really become important, then it could happen. But right now I obviously also don't believe that. Having said that, you are adding room that the Core doesn't have right now either at the moment, seeing as it has made do with the ridiculous amount of 64Mb for most of its career.