Slashdot Mirror
Playstation 2 Outsells both Xbox and Gamecube
Laurens writes "Despite various claims of both Microsoft and Nintendo, this article by the Los Angeles Times has the first independant salesfigures on all 3 next-gen consoles. And it seems the good ol' PS2 sold best this holiday season." I'm an hour into FFX and don't foresee turning my PS2 off much this week. Can't talk now. Must see Lord of the
Rings, and then play more FFX. Is this a great time to be alive, or what?
The PS2 has the advantage that it plays ps1 games and DVD's.
Also if you have a ps1 what unit are you going to get? PS1 games don't look great but many are more fun than there ps2 conterparts and they are cheap.
Also more and more and better games are starting to appear for the PS2 MGS2, FF etc...
Plus the fact the sony appears to be able to churn them out quicker than demand doesn't hurt. That cube seems hard to find.
The only reason the GameCube hasn't sold more than the PS2 is because the PS2 has been out longer.
Except of course the actual statistics mentioned in the article were only from Nov 11th:
PS2 Nov 11th - Dec 8th - 962k
Xbox Nov 15th (release) - Dec 8th - 934k
NGC Nov 18th (release) - Dec 8th - 602k
So, with per day sales on this four-or-so-week period Xbox is a winner. Not as clearly as one would expect though, in my opinion PS2 is doing surprisingly well for a machine that's been available for over a year already.
The reason for PS2 still doing this well compared to brand new consoles is probably that now PS2 *finally* has those killer games that actually make people go out and buy the console. Final Fantasy X and Metal Gear Solid 2 have really boosted the PS2 sales over the past few months.
My sister bought a PS2 for her sons for two reasons alone (In order of importance):
1) It will still play all their existing PS1 games (a large catalog)
2) It plays DVDs out of the box.
The fact that it plays PS1 games is a HUGE factor in its success, IMHO. My other sister (who's kids have an N64) are not getting a new console this year because of the investment required to build up a new library of games. With the PS2, you get the best of both worlds: ability to start building up your new game library, while preserving your existing one.
Nintendo insists those are sell-through numbers. But who can trust them? They claim their initial shipment of 700,000 (150,000 of which went to rental places like Blockbuster, display kiosks, and the Mexican and Canadian market) sold out in the first two weeks and that they have sold - to consumers - more than 800,000 total.
If that's true then that is the fastest Nintendo has ever gotten rid of 800,000 TV consoles. If it's true.
Let me ask you this. Nintendo complained when NPD released their figures (which mirrored the article exactly, making me think they're using the same research) that they didn't take department stores like Wal-Mart and K-Mart into account, that they only surveyed speciality retailers like Babbages and Electronics Boutique and whatnot, and that Wal-Mart is in fact the biggest seller of GameCubes.
I have no way of knowing if that really matters or if that would change the numbers, but I can say that while my local Target, Babbages, and EB have been sold out of GC's for weeks, they keep reappearing on the shelves of my local Wal-Mart (as in, Nintendo is making Wal-Mart a priority for shipments).
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
I got a PS2 last week for christmas (yep, opened it already) and i bought Grand Theft Auto 3. That game is amazing. I find it very addictive. The graphics is really incredible, the attention to details is more than i have ever seen (but then i have been away form console games since SN16 & Sega Genesis). M$ Xbox does look pretty impressive, but i like the idea of voting with my money. Besides, i am not at all disappointed with my the PS2. Once again I have fallen in love with an inaniminate object.
Ok, well that's not completely true- it wasn't the *only* reason. ;-) The one thing I noticed though was that while the Xbox's graphics are better than anything else out there, the games aren't as good as those on the PS2.
A friend of mine picked up an Xbox and I've had a chance to watch him play a few games. Honestly they all look really good, but I'm not all that impressed with the games themselves. Halo has this annoying habbit of stalling for a breif second (in addition ot the short loads between areas of the map) which would drive me nuts in a FPS. And honestly, not having a mouse/keyboard sucks.
Frankly, I'm loving GTA3, GT3 (much better then PGR IMHO), Devil May Cry, etc on my PS2 much more than anything on the Xbox. Even though DOA3 has much nicer graphics than TTT, I still prefer TTT because once you look at everything else, TTT is a better game.
Honestly, the only game on the Xbox I've seen so far that plays as good as it looks is Munch World. But let's face it, between Munch World and FFX, I'll take FFX.
IMHO, the majority of families out there are one-console (per generation) families. Granted there are spoiled kinds out there who's parents will buy every game system under the sun to keep them happy, and there are game-zealots who will buy themselves one of everything, but your middle-to-low income families just won't put the cash out for more than one console every few years. And very few people are going to buy more than one copy of a console. Everybody with me?
PS2 has been out for more than a year as everyone has been so quick to point out. The interesting fact is, they had numbers like this last year at Christmastime, and a full year for everyone else to buy the console if they want, and they're still competitive with the other consoles one year later (in terms of short term sales, give or take a few days). That's a whole lot of PS2s out there in homes. There's going to be a cap on total consoles out there, and PS2 already has a substantial lead in that market. Add in the backwards compatibility with the 17 million or so PSones out there, DVD player ability without buying extra hardware, fairly compact, stereo component-like size (I can fit a PS2 into my entertainment center far easier than I can any other console, present or past), and you have a very attractive console for casual or non gamers.
Historically, the market will only support two game consoles for any length of time.
for example:
Last Generation (Playstation and N64 won, dreamcast lost, though it's a debatable point calling it last-generation)
before that (Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis won, TurboGrafx, 3do lost)
etc, etc, etc.
Being first to market counts for a lot here. Unfortunately, game selection comes in third in my mind for determining who sells more consoles (overall, not in the hardcore gamer market) after price. Rating the three consoles against this criteria:
PS2 - First to Market, Not so good on price, great game selection (had a year to get developers making games look nice)
Wildcard criteria: Backwards and DVD compatibility
XBox - Later to market, decent price(you get more for your $300 than you do with PS2), fair game selection (Though it's slanted toward an older crowd)
Wildcard criteria: MS marketing muscle locking developers into developing only for them, preinstalled peripherals (HD, Network)(addon peripherals traditionally have sold poorly)
Gamecube: Later to market, good price ($100 less than the others), good potential game selection (franchises)
Wildcard criteria: Link in with Gameboy Advance, geared toward kids(Good and bad here)
My guess is that the two survivors this time are going to be PS2 (strictly on install base, not technical merit) and XBox (Sheer marketing power by Microsoft, not to mention its pretty technically competent). Much as I hate to say it, I see Nintendo losing this round, and possibly dropping out of the console market altogether (Focus on Handhelds and game sales on other consoles). I think they will do very well in this position, they've got a solid lock on handhelds, and they've got a lot of great franchises that will sell regardless of the console they're on.
But then again, I've been wrong before.
Okay, I can't find the original article (spend time on Google searches for Square Nintendo fued), but a quote from it,
"Squaresoft president Nao Suzuki has finally spoken out about their relationship with Nintendo. In the Japanese newspaper Nikkei Business he revealed that it was their pride (or arrogance) that led the company to fall out with Nintendo.
He claims that when the company originally announced that Final Fantasy will be going to the Playstation back in 1997 Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi actually took it lightly, saying it "couldn't be helped".
However, Squaresoft then went on to publically diss the Nintendo 64 and amazingly convinced Enix to join the Playstation as well. Looking back he admits it wasn't a very smart move.
So it turns out Yamauchi isn't actually bitter about losing Final Fantasy. It's all about their attitude after and the fact that they got Enix to switch sides as well. You could say Yamauchi was stabbed in the back and is now out for revenge. "
Basically, if you want to understand how Nintendo behaved when they had dominance, read Game Over. If you remember the game shortages and runs from the SMB3 time period, you'll be fascinated to learn how it all went down.
Nintendo got their butt kicked by Sega on the guidelines because of Mortal Kombat. The fixed it by the N64, because it hurt them in the SNES/Genny fight (when Sony was developing the "Play Station" a CD-ROM multimedia system that played SNES games).
In a nutshell though, Square had a few problems with Nintendo.
1. The cartridge format limited FMV. This was the official reason for the fight. It probably wasn't the real reason.
2. The cartridge "costs." Okay, the Slashdot idiots that claim that cartridges cost $20 and CDs $5 don't understand the industry. Nintendo didn't charge "license" fees per say, they sold you cartridges. They outsourced the manufacturing, and included their license fees in the cartridge. This meant that you had to buy a bulk number, paying up front. If the game flopped, Nintendo got paid regardless and you lost out. This meant that Square was perpetually one failled game away from tanking.
3. Arrogance. Nintendo felt (correct, IMHO) that they made Square, so Square should be graetful. Square knew that they had a following, and people would follow them. They saw Sony's entry as an opportunity to negotiate better terms.
4. The Enix connection. Enix was a competitor (Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior series of RPGs), in fact more popular in Japan. Why would Squaresoft bring their competition along? Part of it is cultural, Japanese corporates don't have the same cutthroat tendancies that are in the US. The CEOs of major competitors will all know each other, etc. That's why Sega was able to jump on with their rival Nintendo. The executives were friendly, so they changed from competition to somewhat allies quickly. The other reason is that they probably felt that most gamers would want to play Dragon Quest AND Final Fantasy. If you could only pick a console, and your choices were Final Fantasy and who knows, or Dragon Quest and Mario, Final Fantasy was in trouble. By keeping the RPG giants on the same page regarding the Playstation, RPG fans could safely ditch Nintendo.
Alex