Slashdot Mirror
Why the PS3's February Sales May Be Misleading
1up's Luke Smith takes a look at February's NPD numbers, and has an observation to make about what they might mean for Sony. Though the company is almost certainly not selling as many PS3s as they'd like, the console still sold more units between November and February than a supply-constrained Xbox 360 did last year ... and despite a $200 more expensive pricetag. Though the console is certainly getting off to a slow start (and really needs great software, fast), it's still keeping pace with Microsoft's console from a year ago. "What does this mean for Sony? Considering the system's higher price point, if the platform can keep pace with the Xbox 360 through the first year (while the software matures), regardless of the installed base, the system has to be considered semi-successful. A concerning statistic between the two platforms' first January and February months is the drop-off in sales for those two months. From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units). That drop in sales, considering the units are available at retail, is cause for concern. Yet, despite trailing off by 25% more than its supply-constrained predecessor, the system does still cost $200 more."
It's keeping pace with the 360 sales from a year ago, great, maybe everyone who bought a 360 in that time frame should give theirs back so this would mean shit.
MS took a chance and released early. Seems like it's paying off so far. The PS3 will catch up once its big exclusives come around, but let's not try to make the PS3's sale performance so far a special event.
The PS3 isn't competing with the 360 from a year ago. It's competing with the 360 right now. There's a big difference between the number of quality titles between then and now.
And I don't even need to mention the added competition the Wii brings...
I want to give my take on the issue. Analysts pull numbers out of their ass, I can do that too. I will say up front that I am heavily biased against the evil ones... er, I mean, Sony.
Sony sold a whisker more units of the PS3 than Microsoft did of the Xbox 360 during the same timeframe. But they arguably should have sold piles more of them. The size of the gaming market is increasing, after all.
I personally believe what happened is that the long wait ate up a lot of Sony customers. While people were waiting for the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 was eating up some of those people. Less of them will therefore be buying a PS3. I think the price factor might even be less significant than this issue, except in the UK, where the cost of the system is truly ludicrous.
I believe the long wait also ate up Sony exclusives. Developers were seeing that Sony was going to be last to the party and market share was going to decline as a result. Making an exclusive makes sense when you're making it for the most popular platform in the generation. It doesn't when you aren't. The battle for this generation is still very much up in the air, of course, and Sony is simply not a sure thing in this round.
Gamers follow the games. If the Final Fantasy franchise becomes nonexclusive (only niche final fantasy titles are available on other platforms) then Sony might as well bend over and kiss their ass goodbye.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm hoping the PS3 will flop massively and get Sony out of the game business. It was sickening to see the crappiest hardware of the previous generation get tons of exclusives... it's time for the good stuff to sell better for a change!
on my local freecycle list (a place where people instead of chucking things out give them away). I was too late, the only time in months i sleep in till 2pm on a saturday, somebody gives away a 360 because they are getting a PS3.
i wuz not 'appy i can tell ya!
If anything can be shown from past console releases... once a single company has momentum(Atari, NES, SNES, PSX, GBA, PS2, DS) they typically own that generation. I think it was the Sega Genesis that somewhat challenged the SNES, but for the most part... everyone owned a SNES.
With Nintendo on its way to passing the Xbox 360 and with the DS trouncing the PSP... does keeping pace with the XBox360 really mean a success. At the end of the day... they have still lost money. Keeping pace is nothing but par and hoping that the current leader(m$) makes a mistake. And forget about the supposed 10 year life cycle of the PS3. Think about the graphics cards from 5 years ago(just look at the ps2). 10 years is a long time.
From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units).
250,000 is bigger than 244,000.
161,000 is bigger than 127,000.
PS3 sold LESS units than the "supply-constrained Xbox360", and the PS3 isn't - as Sony so frequently tries to say - "supply-constrained."
It's just a waste of money, and the sales figures are the proof.
Can we stop saying "price point" please? If we were discussing whether to see the PS3 at $500 or $600 we would be talking price points. If we had a graph of actual demand at different prices, we would probably be talking price points.
Comparing the current prices of the xbox and playstation is not economic theory, it is discussing the actual prices (or in some cases suggested prices) of the goods. But they do not represent price points.
Using jargon like "Price point" does not make you sound smarter... having a good argument to back up your claim makes you sound smarter.
Yes, the PS3 was not as supply-contstrained in December, the key selling month, and so it is slightly ahead overall for the first four months.
So what? The first four months of the 360 were disasterous due to supply. Microsoft haters delighted in pointing out that it was wayyy behind the first four Dreamcast months. As it happens, the PS3 is also well behind the first four months of the Dreamcast. (And it should be noted that it's behind in both hardware and software, whereas 360 was only behind on hardware).
I find it very difficult to believe that the PS3 will match or surpass the PS2's performance.
Simply put, the PS2 had a fantastic first full holiday season in 2001. Sure, it was competing against the Gamecube and the Xbox, but between those they had only two then-available killer apps: Halo and Super Smash Bros. Melee. The PS2 had a great library of titles: Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry and (depending on your market) Grand Theft Auto 3 and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 or Gran Turismo 2 and Onimusha. And these were just the ones that sold over a million worldwide by year's end 2001. At the time, all but one of those (THPS3) were exclusive to Sony's machine.
Fast-forward to holiday season 2007. Final Fantasy XIII won't be here or in Europe in time for the holidays (remember, there's an 8-11 month lag after the initial Japanese release). Metal Gear Solid 4 will be here, but not in Europe (assuming standard delays). Devil May Cry isn't exclusive anymore and Grand Theft Auto IV comes out on multiple platforms at once. I'll be amazed if we get Gran Turismo before 2008's holiday season.
Meanwhile, the Wii may continue dominating in the untested non-gamer/casual market demographics, and the 360 will have a strong library of games, not to mention the new Halo title.
This does not mean doom for the PS3. They still have interesting titles. They still have Blu-Ray which with the release of Casino Royale is turning from an unnecessary add-on to something at least worth investigating further. This year, Sony has something they've never had before: real competition. The PS3 won't dominate the way the PS2 did in its second year. There will be a PS4. But they've burned a lot of marketshare as a result of their hubris, and their previous victory won't be repeated to the same extent this time.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I thought that NPD's numbers were incomplete as they don't record sales from a number of stores, such as Walmart. Speaking of which, does Walmart even CARRY the PS3? At $600, it'd probably be one of the most expensive items in the store, wouldn't it?
I don't think comparing the two consoles's launch periods is really a good indication regarding how they compare to each other. This is due to the fact the 360 had no competition at the time and the games sucked! well up until GRAW 1 they were terrible.
So now, the PS3 is suffering the same fate, TERRIBLE software. But whats different this time around is the fact the old exclusive titles are coming out on both the PS3 and the 360, so based on cost and other titles available a consumer may lean towards the 360 instead of the ps3.
Its still way to early to predict the success of either console, I personally have both and am hoping the PS3 finds its market and they regain some of their exclusive titles back because so far the PS3 is just a 360 in disguise with respect to gaming.
IMO, the flagship games still really sell a console. E.g. Wii and Zelda. The PS3 has suffered because the most reknown [originally Nintendo but now] PS series, Final Fantasy, hasn't released their next incarnation yet. From the feedback I've read over numerous forums and comments from blogs, had Sony released the PS3 at the same time as FF they would've been onto something good. Now with that hanging in the balance they're treading on thin ice despite the 'home theatre' features.
I live in Australia so instantly you should realise that I am really annoyed at Sony. They claim that we'll be satisfied with the $1000 price tag because of the "fantastic graphics". WAKE UP SONY! The graphics aren't the end-all and be-all of games (they should've realised this, looking at the Wii). They probably think we're all a bunch of red neck techno-phobes with lots of money and the IQ of a gnats left testicle. Combined. The graphics are the same as the US/Jap versions so HOW does that justify costing so much more? It doesn't cost AU$250 per unit to ship them out here. Sony's trying to recoup it's losses on the rest of the world plain and simple. They really don't give a toss about 'the rest of the world' it seems. Several friends of mine are dedicated Sony fans (they wont go near the Wii or XBox360) and have well worn PS2s. Because of this debacle they're not touching the PS3 until Sony get their act together and frankly I don't blame them.
Sorry, we forgot to tell you, they're already part of the RIAA.
I'm only going to compare the higher-end models, since that is what the article in question focuses on. As the article points out...the PS3 is $200 more. But the question is why? And what do you get for your $200? The answer is, quite a few things. I'm also going to assume that people who are griping about the PS3's price aren't going to upgrade the feature-set of their 360 to match it.
40GB more hard disk, BluRay Disc, built-in WiFi, built-in card-reader, standard USB peripheral interface, free Internet multiplayer gaming, and interesting extras...like the new Folding@Home...or the upcoming PS3 Home.
To purchase Microsoft's WiFi adapter and their HD-DVD drive...that sets you back $300 more...so now your Xbox360 didn't just cost $400. To reach up to what you get with your $600 PS3 purchase...you have to pay at least $700 on the Xbox360. And you haven't added your Xbox Live Gold ongoing subscription costs if you are into multiplayer online or other online content.
There are poor games and brilliant games on both side of the 360 vs. PS3 'war'. Neither console had a lot of games out initially either. So, both of those are not really talking points. But the generalization that the Xbox360 is just flat out cheaper...well...that depends on what you want out of your system. If you don't want HD movies, free online play, built-in WiFi, or any of the other extras or untapped future potential of the PS3...then sure, the Xbox360 has some brilliant games out. But I know there are a lot of players like myself that want the extras that PS3 already provides, and we can pass up "Gears of War".
The small, minor, tiny little problem Sony has is that no matter how well they're doing compared to the Xbox 360 last year, they started a year later. The PS3 has to sell as many units as the Xbox 360 did last year at this time plus as many units as the Xbox 360 is selling now. And if they do that for the rest of the year, then they will be merely tied with the Xbox 360 in November. Both will be far behind the Wii, if current sell-through rates continue.
Unfortunately for Sony, they are only barely meeting last year's extremely supply-constrained Xbox 360 sales. And by failing to meet Xbox 360 sell-through figures, they are losing ground at a ridiculous pace.
Sony doesn't get to hop into a time machine and pretend the last year's Xbox 360 sales didn't happen.
Sony is 4 million units behind Microsoft, and that gap is growing every month.
1. The author implies that by matching sales roughly by the XBox 360 at the same point in it's lifecycle, even though at the same point the 360 was "supply-constrained" and the PS3 is not, the console can be considered "semi-successful" because it is $200 more. First, I don't want to throw in with the "semi-successful" brand when dropping a couple hundred on a new system. Second, that's great for Sony's bottom line, but poison for third-party support. They don't care how much more Sony makes per unit shifted. They're only concerned about their own sales volume. The author implies that because consumers are willing to drop $200 more on the PS3 that the "supply-constrained" sales figures of the 360 at the same point, the "supply-constrained" aspect is somehow nullified. That's reaching, but ultimately none of this matters. If the PS3 can't achieve an installed user base greater than the 360, developers aren't going to focus on the PS3 platform since it won't make as much money.
2. Sony's figures represent units sold to retail, not sold through to consumers. So, included in their figures are all the PS3's that are sitting on store shelves, not installed units. Other platforms quote actual sale-through figures and represent installed units.
And MS figures does not only include retail, but also units replaced because of "ring of death"
I must admit (I already have a 360 and a Wii) even a week ago I wouldn't have believed I'd be out on a cold UK night queuing up for one, and I am a total, complete and utter hypocrite (I have been less than enamoured of the PS£ previously on these very pages), but... After realising I could pony up most the cost by trading in a PS2 with 30 well played games (and keeping the good ones for back-compat), I could not resist its shiny allure - and god it is a shiny behemoth of a thing - and I think seriously well futureproofed. Previous posters have commented on the base cost of the 360 and I agree that the out of the box extras the PS3 has do outweigh the extra cost over the 360. Motorstorm is sublime, and having the 60 Gig HD out of the box to download game demos is great. Also, I never played online on the 360 simply because of the fee. Within half an hour I was playing other people on Motorstorm and I know everyone goes on about the XBOX live experience, seriously the PS3 network isn't like it's terrible. In fact I found it quite easy and pleasant to use - apart from the text input but all the systems suffer that. No the launch line up isn't great but I'm really looking forwards to littlebig planet and of course the titles will get better over the next year. There don't seem to be so many exclusives round so far this gen - the result? I seriously think I might can the 360 to recoup some more of my cash (finished Gears, but will miss Crackdown, great game). I'm not a Sony shill, far from it, but I'm trying to add some balance to the argument. As for the Wii? Well, that is in a class of its own. Zelda as usual is great, if only my wife and mother in law would stop kicking my ass at bowling...
I would agree. Looking at the recent "Top 25 games" article for the PS2 (I think it was on IGN) made me cry inside. This is the most successfull console of the last generation, yet there are maybe 5 or 6 really, truly great games on it. Most of the other stuff is annual sports updates, cheap movie licenses, FPS (mostly WW2) and some random EA shovelware. Even the Cube's "Top 25 games" list was a lot more interesting, with more diverse and better games.
I have no idea what the DC could have done had Sega not killed it. I would guess that a good developer could get a lot more out of the PS2 than out of the DC. But nobody really did. Looking at the top games, I think the DC can easily compete with the PS2 even years after its death.
That's fine that it costs more, but sony is also LOSING more on each PS3 sold.
If sony wants to retain it's console crown, they need to do something, and fast. The 360 has a very large number of titles coming out that have me (and many others) extremely excited...the PS3 only has couple titles that could have me (and many others)saying the same thing.
Living With a Nerd
Education resources, Please enter http://education-resources.blogspot.com/
The headsets aren't cheap, but at least you can use the same one for PS3/phone/car.