Nintendo Claims No.2 Spot, PS2 Sales Down Year-On-Year

jkcity writes "In an interview with Nintendo's Perrin Kaplan on IGN Cube, she claims: 'We basically won 2003 [in the U.S.] and moved ourselves to the number two spot, and Microsoft's Xbox to number three', also noting: 'Year-on-year we were up 68.5% [in December] based on units sold. We sold about 1.1 million GameCubes in December... For the whole year we were up 35%. Our competitors were both in the negative.' But an analyst quoted in an [overly harsh?] BBC News story is less impressed, suggesting the console 'did not do as well as I would have expected'." Elsewhere, a Reuters story notes that PlayStation 2 sales in the U.S. "fell 27 percent to 2.94 million units in November and December from four million units a year earlier", but the console still seems to be outselling the GameCube's increased Xmas volume.

Comments

Makes Sense to this Panda

[Ultra_Panda_Bear]

Well of course the PS2 sales are starting to drop. The unit is coming close to saturating the market and the product is nearing the end of its lifetime. Most people who want a PS2, have a PS2.

With the huge market of PS2 owners this Christmas [who have had their consoles for awhile], a $100 second console was very attractive, I assume. Furthermore, the Gamecube seems to compliment the PS2 better than the XBox compliments the PS2 - meaning that there seems to be a lot of games for the Gamecube that can't be found on the PS2 whereas most of the games of the XBox can be found on the PS2 in some form or another. When looking to add a second console to my entertainment setup, I look for unique play experiences, not just better graphics.

Overly critical

[DrDoombender]

The article that talks about the Gamecube not doing very is overly critical. They make is sound as if Nintendo is on its last legs, nobody likes them anymore and about to go bankrupt.

"Does it want to be in the handheld, the kiddie market or compete more externally in the wider market?"

first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't. I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with. The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.

Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage. Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).

I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have experience. I think that they will be around for along time.

The only other problem I have, is that at this point I see no reason for Nintendo to make a next gen console. The GC still has alot of potential left in it, and it seems absurd to make gamers buy a new console, and new games for it. Also, it might be good to see what Sony, and Microsoft come out with so they can top those consoles. All the while, continuing to increase the number of the titles for the GC. On the otherhand, it makes perfect sense that the PS2 be phased out to the PS3 since the PS2 is seeing its age.

In any case, don't count Nintendo out just because they don't have the buy power of Sony and Microsoft. Money doesn't bring success, talent does.

Re:Overly critical

[PainKilleR-CE]

first and foremost, this part of the article is totally ridiculous. A console can be many many things. In fact, Nintendo has had the opportunity of a lucrative handheld market, while also being a console business. Why do you have to cater to one and only one market? Obviously you don't.

Exactly. Most investors talk about diversifying their investments, so why should a company be any different? At least Nintendo has some similarity in their markets so that they can learn from one category and use that knowledge in another, not to mention product leveraging like GBA-GC connectivity. Additionally, the BBC story was very light on actual facts and numbers. They didn't talk about Nintendo's sales, or even discuss their handheld position in the least. Maybe the GC is in a significantly worse position in the UK, but there aren't any numbers on the page to prove their points.

I think if anything there are two things that Nintendo is doing wrong. The first is their image, people DO still think of the gamecube as primarily for kids. I do, but I also own the Mature titles. So perhaps their image needs to be dealt with.

The problem is finding a way to deal with that image. They've been working on this problem since it first came up in the 16-bit console wars with Sega. So far they've had very limited success, at best.

The other thing is with their lack of cheaper titles. I can play $15 greatest hits PS2 titles and $20 PS2 GH games. While it usually costs around $25-$30 for a GH equivalent on the gamecube. Who cares if the GC is cheaper, the games are often more expensive when it comes to older titles. Perhaps Nintendo should consider making more of their titles around the $20-$25 mark.

My only comment on this is that most of the GC titles I've purchased have been in the $20-25 range, although some of them were used titles. I can find a lot more PS2 titles in that price range, but then there are a lot more PS2 titles in general, and I can't necessarily find titles I want, for any console, in that range now that I have a similar number of titles for each system. At worst, I'd say that Nintendo's top-tier 1st party titles stay at the $50 price longer than most PS2 titles, but I can't say the same in comparison with the XBox, where Halo sat at $50 for 2 years.

Also in the market, it talks about how the PS2 had a year's headstart over Microsoft and Nintendo. However, the first year the PS2 was out, lots of gamers were dissappointed with the lack of titles. I think having a headstart doesn't necessarily give a company an advantage.

The Dreamcast had a year's head start on the PS2, and in many ways had titles that showed off the hardware better at launch, but it didn't help them against Sony. The PS2 wasn't even widely available for 6 months after it's US launch, and it still pulled ahead mostly on the strength of Sony's marketing and the PS1's titles and reputation.

Nintendo and Microsoft have some great titles, but yes, I am aware that the PS2 has a huge selection of titles (but is that due to them being Sony, or having a headstart, and could you say the same if we were talking about Nintendo or Microsoft?).

It's due to Sony's reputation among developers for allowing a lot of freedom in content (even if it's no longer true that they have any more freedom there than anywhere else), plus the head start, and their dominance in the previous console generation. Currently, there are more multi-platform releases than exclusives for any of the consoles, at least as far as I've been able to tell, which is probably the reason for Sony's recent whining about the quality of multi-platform titles on their console (and it's generally accepted that a good multi-platform title isn't going to look as good on a PS2, which may be an image problem for Sony's entry for the next console generation).

I do agree however that Nintendo should not be underestimated. They don't have the resource of Sony or Microsoft, but they do have exper