What constitutes a successful console? (other than profit!) *spawn

[mrcorbo]

Credit to ZhugeEX on GAF.

Given that the PS4 is selling like the Wii despite not being cheap or a fad over the same post-launch period and that the XBOne is outselling the unequivocally successful 360 (and following a very similar sales curve) over the same post-launch period, can we please kill the "XBOne is doomed" narrative and maybe focus more on the "PS4 is killing it" one?

 

[Phil]

Given that the PS4 is selling like the Wii despite not being cheap or a fad over the same post-launch period and that the XBOne is outselling the unequivocally successful 360 (and following a very similar sales curve) over the same post-launch period, can we please kill the "XBOne is doomed" narrative and maybe focus more on the "PS4 is killing it" one?

Is it not relevant to point out that the X360 at the time didn't have any real competition and had a huge headstart? Right now, the Xbox One is losing a lot of ground to its near and only competitor, the PS4 that does pretty much the same things, plays the same games etc. That the PS4 is selling at the rate that it is (at the Wii rate) is actually quite alarming for Microsoft IMO - it probably means that a lot of sales are generated by likely ex X360 owners. In other words == lost sales that ain't coming back, unles those same buyers decide to own more than one console.

 

[goonergaz]

Is it not relevant to point out that the X360 at the time didn't have any real competition and had a huge headstart? Right now, the Xbox One is losing a lot of ground to its near and only competitor, the PS4 that does pretty much the same things, plays the same games etc. That the PS4 is selling at the rate that it is (at the Wii rate) is actually quite alarming for Microsoft IMO - it probably means that a lot of sales are generated by likely ex X360 owners. In other words == lost sales that ain't coming back, unles those same buyers decide to own more than one console.

Yeah, it's odd - on the one hand it's selling well - ie more than the X360 which launched with no competition...but on the other hand it's selling badly ie WW much less than it's only competitor. It depends how you want to spin the data, right now XBO is on track to sell better than the X360 but worse than PS4 (if trends continue)...but I think the bottom line is it'll sell much worse than they had hoped.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I suppose typically the normalised measure is market share. Given the market is growing each generation, overall sales should be increasing. Proportion of those sales represents how well a product is competing. Also, profit is the only real concern to the company, although they'll pursue that through such things as install base and trying to grow that.

 

[Phil]

Marketshare is increasing? How? I don't see it. Last generation, and the one before, was big, because there were lots of casual gamers. On the PS2, they [casuals] had little to no alternatives for their gaming-fix, other than perhaps handhelds. Then, the Wii came and increased that marketshare with a product specifically catered to the casuals. Now, lots of those casuals have probably moved on to gaming on smartphones and tablets. So, the market might be increasing as a whole, but the console-market, I'm not so sure. I wouldn't be surprised if that will remain somewhat constant at somewhere between 120-150 million. Remember, X360/PS3 each sold 80 million. But that doesn't count the people who are one and the same customer who have bought multiple consoles, or went from a original to a slim. However, it doesn't count that perhaps one console is used by multiple gamers (family members). I don't really the market in that sense growing much, not when the most casual gamer (who doesn't buy consoles) plays on smartphones and doesn't need to invest into a console.

 

[Arwin]

Or the whole market grows, phones, tablets, consoles, etc. people used to think that casuals would move to web, Facebook, etc, but the console markets kept growing. I think there is some truth to smartphones threatening consoles for sure, though perhaps more handheld consoles than home, but overall some of those smart device gamers may just as well find that PC, Xbox or PS4 are a natural next step.

 

[goonergaz]

They keep saying the day of the console is dead (or dying) but it certainly doesn't look that way. Last gen I'd say many people bought a Wii alongside their console of choice (as well as the Wii growing the market) - of course those who bought a Wii might get a 'this gen' console - now they've had a taste of gaming, but I suspect the majority will be happy where they are playing Wii Sports.

Overall I think we'll see a similar market size this gen where the core market grows but some of the Wii market is left behind.

 

[Phil]

Exactly. The market as a whole is growing, but we're talking about consoles here. And the problems consoles are facing is that games are becoming more expensive (due to rising complexity) but the market in itself might have stagnated. Well, not necessarely; as new markets such as india, china etc will increase the entire market. But on a per nation basis, I think the market is unlikely to grow significantly. The problem with the handheld market is that *everyone has one*. And not for gaming mind you - but for everyday use, texting, surfing, emailing etc. Games is just a natural extension, and more as an 'entertainment on the go' side-show. Effective for mini-games, games sold at micro-transactions, but those games won't get them to buy $300 consoles they have to hook-up to $900 tvs etc. Most people who play games on mobile, don't want or need to play on a console. Some of these people used to buy perhaps a PS2 as it was in, or a Wii because everyone had or wanted one (especially the girls), but those days are over. PS4 and Xbox One are more or less back to what they do best; hardcore, complex, high fidelity games. And in that sense, I don't see the market for those two consoles expanding over what we had a generation before if we just look at x360 and Ps3. Well, except if China/india and other markets strastically increase the marketshare that is.

But for what it's worth - Xbox One's struggles are real, despite the good sales graphic the page before. It's losing sales relative to its direct and "only" competitor. Back when the X360 was on the market, it was crucially ahead of them (except the Wii that was competing for arguably different gamers; e.g. the casuals).

 

[goonergaz]

Well X360 had a year headstart and eventually the PS3 roughly caught up - X360 had a load of advantages (price & lack of competition to gain a foothold) yet still sold less than XBO which is why some think the XBO sales are not that bad.

Of course it could be argued that last gen went on for too long which is why this gen has started with strong sales - also the PS4 was very competitively priced, but again, even with the high price XBO has sold well (relative to last gen).

We're going round and round, but for me the bottom line is 'how are you doing compared to your competition or target?' I'm sure MS expected to do much better and would have budgeted everything against that - since launch it's clear they got it wrong otherwise they wouldn't have taken out the kinect nor kept dropping the price...why drop the price if the figures are ok?

 

[MrFox]

Current gen also launched without being supply-constrained. I would say PS3 was hyped so much many were waiting instead of getting a 360.

Launch year is about hype, the second year they have to deliver. So far I would say both Sony and MS have only partially delivered on their respective hype (MS doing 180s about everything, Sony delayed almost every 1st party and firmware features). Nintendo gets a pass because their hype was "we'll give you all the same games with slightly better graphics", and they delivered, so a big congratulation goes to Nintendo. You can't fail if you aim low.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think there are some large logical fallacies in the reasoning "the One is ahead of the 360, so it's doing good" statement. It looks at how the 360 started and where it ended up and tries to correlate that to Xbox One. But that is a very poor comparison, because 360 started quite poorly. It had to build on a very poor foundation. 360 didn't start from nothing, but not too far from it. The One is following a successful console.

The original Xbox had very low sales, especially outside NA. 360 managed to grow from its relatively unknown status to popularity throughout its lifespan, especially from its midpoint and forwards. I am not saying that the similar boost couldn't happen for Xbox One also, but there really isn't too many things pointing that way. Who knows maybe they have something super cool cooking up, but certainly you can't draw that from that cumulative sales since launch chart!

Why should we compare current sales to sales from 8 years ago, 8 years ago the digital world was very different and the positioning of the manufacturers was also very different compared to today. Imo it's just as if not more valid to compare current sales to the more stronger X360 years and see where the sales health is at.

 

[Shortbread]

I think the biggest attraction XB360 had going for it, was the massive appeal of bringing PC gamers over with it's PC centric hardware/dashboard design - but with a more unified online gaming structure and the hot exclusives (Gears, Halo, COD DLC, etc...) that MS was obtaining, that PC gamers wanted.

Now it's a different story, both XB1/PS4 have similar PC'ish hardware and their dashboards and apps aren't that far apart in overall functionality and appeal. Exclusives (mostly DLC) are a dime a dozen now, relying solely on 1st party titles on making the systems look more attractive to purchase. Thus, most PC gamers either returned back to the PC or decided the PS4 was the better choice from a price/performance perspective and the larger 1st party library.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Marketshare is increasing? How? I don't see it.

I was speaking more in general terms. Every generation of consoles has outsold its prior generation AFAIK. Thus total sales isn't necessarily a great measure. 10% of 100 million consoles is less impressive than 20% of 25 million
consoles even if it's sold more, at least regards the people who's hobby is gaming. That'd mean the larger sales is a less significant brand in the new, larger market.

As for whether this generation is larger than the last, probably not because of the Wii, but that was anomalous and throws out the figures. Comparing the 'real' consoles, the PlayStations and XBoxes and Gamecubes etc., they are all selling more. The new consoles are selling faster than PS360. And there is a larger world to sell to now.

But ultimately I don't think it matters. Whether this gen tops out at 100 million or 300 million, it'll be MS's market share that defines if they're a significant player or a bit part. Maybe console gaming will reduce to a niche and overall sales figures will be low. At that point, it doesn't matter whether you're a big player or not, and at that point MS will certainly leave!

As I said earlier, ultimately the only measure for the companies is profit. MS would rather have insane profits with a smaller market share (or total unit sales) than a loss with a larger market share (or unit sales).

 

[Goodtwin]

Current gen also launched without being supply-constrained. I would say PS3 was hyped so much many were waiting instead of getting a 360.

Launch year is about hype, the second year they have to deliver. So far I would say both Sony and MS have only partially delivered on their respective hype (MS doing 180s about everything, Sony delayed almost every 1st party and firmware features). Nintendo gets a pass because their hype was "we'll give you all the same games with slightly better graphics", and they delivered, so a big congratulation goes to Nintendo. You can't fail if you aim low.

You think Nintendo only slightly improved their games? Really? Sorry, but Wii to Wii U is a bigger jump than PS3/360 to PS4/X1. The Wii U console may be the weakest by far, but its still a large jump from the Wii. Nintendo certainly doesn't reinvent the wheel with their iconic IP's, but at least they don't milk the consumer dry with yearly releases of the same games. The biggest games so far on PS4 and X1 are prettier versions of their last gen predecessor. Assassins Creed, COD, Battlefield, Killzone Shadowfall, The Last of Us and so on are little more than prettier versions of games they have been making last gen. The gaming market as a whole hasn't exactly strayed to far from the tried and true product. I would venture to say that the only real selling point for X1 and PS4 is the better graphics, the games arent revolutionary in any sense.

 

[dobwal]

I think there are some large logical fallacies in the reasoning "the One is ahead of the 360, so it's doing good" statement. It looks at how the 360 started and where it ended up and tries to correlate that to Xbox One. But that is a very poor comparison, because 360 started quite poorly. It had to build on a very poor foundation. 360 didn't start from nothing, but not too far from it. The One is following a successful console.

The original Xbox had very low sales, especially outside NA. 360 managed to grow from its relatively unknown status to popularity throughout its lifespan, especially from its midpoint and forwards. I am not saying that the similar boost couldn't happen for Xbox One also, but there really isn't too many things pointing that way. Who knows maybe they have something super cool cooking up, but certainly you can't draw that from that cumulative sales since launch chart!

Why should we compare current sales to sales from 8 years ago, 8 years ago the digital world was very different and the positioning of the manufacturers was also very different compared to today. Imo it's just as if not more valid to compare current sales to the more stronger X360 years and see where the sales health is at.

Its the console market. A wildly successful console isn't much a foundation for your future gen. Both Nintendo and Sony were hugely successful with their first attempts at the market. Both found themselves looking up from the bottom of the hill after dominating the two previous gen.

And while the 360 provided better market recognition for the xbox one than it was provided by the original XBox, the One didn't have a year headstart with no competition and then basically an extra year due to Sony outpricing the market with its $600 PS3. Plus most gamers knew of the Xbox well before the 360 started to sell well. Halo was a well known and critically well received franchise. I doubt gamers were generally unaware of the game or it being exclusive to the Xbox. Its not like the Xbox lack of sales were due to MS being cheap with its marketing.

Ultimately the success during a gen is mostly the result of the circumstances that exist within the gen. While previous success helps, it not something even a newcomer can't overcome given the right circumstances.

 

[Globalisateur]

You think Nintendo only slightly improved their games? Really? Sorry, but Wii to Wii U is a bigger jump than PS3/360 to PS4/X1. The Wii U console may be the weakest by far, but its still a large jump from the Wii. Nintendo certainly doesn't reinvent the wheel with their iconic IP's, but at least they don't milk the consumer dry with yearly releases of the same games. The biggest games so far on PS4 and X1 are prettier versions of their last gen predecessor. Assassins Creed, COD, Battlefield, Killzone Shadowfall, The Last of Us and so on are little more than prettier versions of games they have been making last gen. The gaming market as a whole hasn't exactly strayed to far from the tried and true product. I would venture to say that the only real selling point for X1 and PS4 is the better graphics, the games arent revolutionary in any sense.

I like too much Nintendo games to argue with you even if I wanted to.

Indeed I am feeling too much like a real "Nintendo Enthusiast" like yourself just now. Still I don't feel like I would totally agree with what you just wrote.

 

[djskribbles]

Its the console market. A wildly successful console isn't much a foundation for your future gen. Both Nintendo and Sony were hugely successful with their first attempts at the market. Both found themselves looking up from the bottom of the hill after dominating the two previous gen.

A wildly successful console is a great foundation for your future gen, as long as you don't get arrogant and mess it up (ie Sony with the PS3, thinking they would sell no matter what price). There's no way the XB1 would have sold nearly as well as it did in the first few months without the success of the X360... not with all the negativity surrounding it and $500 price tag. MS built a good fan base with the X360, which is a big reason why the XB1 was wildly successful at launch. But now we're seeing sales fall, despite being considerably cheaper than the competition. If it wasn't for MS' aggressive pricing lately, XB1 would no doubt be tracking below the X360 with launches aligned.

How were sales of the Nintendo/PS1 in their first year? My guess is not that great, at least when compared to future generations.

 

[dobwal]

A wildly successful console is a great foundation for your future gen, as long as you don't get arrogant and mess it up (ie Sony with the PS3, thinking they would sell no matter what price). There's no way the XB1 would have sold nearly as well as it did in the first few months without the success of the X360... not with all the negative press and $500 price tag. MS built a good fan base with the X360, which is a big reason why the XB1 was wildly successful at launch. But now we're seeing sales fall, despite being considerably cheaper than the competition.

How were sales of the Nintendo/PS1 in their first year? My guess is not that great, at least when compared to future generations.

And that's precisely why the XB1 is selling ahead of the X360. That paired with the fact that they were not supply constrained for the majority of their launch.

There is nothing amazing about the One first year sales in comparison to the 360 other than maybe supply. Their sales are product of different circumstances. Who knows what the 360 would have been if there 3 million available units at launch and MS was willing to incur the level of bundling and price dropping the One saw in its first 18 months. The 360 didn't have a price drop for like two years.

Does the success of the 360 have influence of the Xbox One sales at launch? Sure. Was it a dominating factor? Probably not.

The 360 was the predecessor of a console with a 25 million userbase. It used its one year head start and Sony's initial misadventure to overcome those disadvantage but other disadvantages as well. It was by far the most unreliable hardware to launch out of the console space. It was as noisy as all outdoors. It turn alot of people off by gouging buyers with its piecemeal approach. Pay $50 a year for online multiplayer. Pay an extra $70 for wireless connection. Pay an extra $100 dollars for a 20 GB that initially was used to house game saves and small downloadable titles.

Both consoles had a ton of things wrong with them while having a bunch of things go right. And if MS is arrogant now, its basically always been arrogant.

For MS their smoothest launch will probably be from their least successful console.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There is nothing amazing about the One first year sales in comparison to the 360 other than maybe supply. Their sales are product of different circumstances. Who knows what the 360 would have been if there 3 million available units at launch and MS was willing to incur the level of bundling and price dropping the One saw in its first 18 months. The 360 didn't have a price drop for like two years.

Bringing in supply constraint is a bit disingenuous. Yes, the X360 was supply constrained in it's first 3 months. It was, however, oversupplied quite often after that, expecially for the following holiday season.

Yet despite ample supply of the X360 after the first few launch months, the XBO is still quite handily outselling it. More supply in those first 3 months would have only shifted sales to those first 3 months from the following months. It wasn't like the X360 had a competitor at the time to which it would lose sales. Anyone waiting for a PS3 after those initial 3 months was likely going to be waiting for a PS3 during those initial 3 months.

There also wasn't really anything on the order of Gears of War in order to boost interest in the XBO compared to the X360. Titanfall? Not even close to the interest that Gears generated. Ryse? Not really. Sunset Overdrive? nope. Dead Rising 3? X360 had Dead Rising.

In isolation there is no question the XBO is doing well. However, it isn't operating in isolation. It's primary competitor is doing signficantly better. And more to the point it's competitor is significantly outpacing how well almost anyone would have expected. It is performing at levels significantly higher than expectation. The XBO, if anything is performing slightly lower than expectations. Yet despite that it is continuing to grow the brand relative to the previous generation. It's not failing as much as it isn't performing as well relative to the competition.

PS3 can be considered a failure because it performed significantly worse than the previous generation. The same goes for the Wii-U which is underperforming by any metric used, especially when compared to the previous generation. It's hard to take the doom and gloom of claims that the XBO is a failure, seriously, when it is still outperforming the previous generation.

There's a chance that once we get to the point where we compare Halo 3's impact versus Halo 5's impact, that we can start to see some cracks leading to an eventual failure compared to last gen., but that hasn't happened yet. And to claim that it has is massively premature.

Regards,
SB

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Its the console market. A wildly successful console isn't much a foundation for your future gen. Both Nintendo and Sony were hugely successful with their first attempts at the market. Both found themselves looking up from the bottom of the hill after dominating the two previous gen.

And while the 360 provided better market recognition for the xbox one than it was provided by the original XBox, the One didn't have a year headstart with no competition and then basically an extra year due to Sony outpricing the market with its $600 PS3.

I have to point out that I don't claim that past success/brand recognition is the only thing that matters or that it can enable the manufacturer to do anything, but it is very important. It is a very good foundation. If other things are close to equal, it grows in importance. If you flip the previous old gen launch by PS3 launching first by a year, much cheaper and generally with better versions of the multiplayer games. Essentially just switching the brands around, do you reckon the 360 would have managed to claw its way back to a WW tie? I'm claiming the sales numbers would have been far from a tie.

Plus most gamers knew of the Xbox well before the 360 started to sell well. Halo was a well known and critically well received franchise. I doubt gamers were generally unaware of the game or it being exclusive to the Xbox. Its not like the Xbox lack of sales were due to MS being cheap with its marketing.

If you knew Xbox, you probably knew Halo, but PS2 was in about 120-150 million homes and the original Xbox sold about 25M, most of that only in NA. There is a gap there on how well those two machines and console brands were known. MS had to have many advantages, do a ton of things right and heavy marketing to get the sales going.

Ultimately the success during a gen is mostly the result of the circumstances that exist within the gen. While previous success helps, it not something even a newcomer can't overcome given the right circumstances.

A newcomer has to have something extra or a special capability to make majority of people switch from the existing well known brands. It's hard to beat the champ, if the champ makes no errors.