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."

Comments

Slash needs to RTFA!

[Moryath]

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.

Re:Slash needs to RTFA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you read the article. The first four months of release, not just Jan/Feb, the PS3 sold 1.06 million units to xbox 360's 1.02 million units. Since 1.06 is greater than 1.02, it seems that Sony did in fact sell more units.

Second paragraph of the article;

"During its first four months at retail, Microsoft's Xbox 360 was supply constrained but still managed a sell-through in the U.S. of 1.02M consoles through February 2006, according to NPD figures. With suffocating supply constraints during the November launch period, Sony's PlayStation 3 still outsold the Xbox 360 during the same four-month launch window with 1.06M consoles sold through February 2007."

Dreamcast comparisons

[metroid composite]

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).

Re:My biased take

[dank zappingly]

Not a bad point, but I don't know if the gaming market is increasing in Sony's favor. I would say that casual gaming (WiiDS) is increased, but the hardcore subset willing to pay 600 bucks is probably about the same. While 360 had more supply issues, it was also the only next-gen console on the market at the time. I used to have 2 Xboxes and I really loved the system, but Microsoft didn't support them too long. They came out with the 360 to beat Sony to the market. They released the "core" unit for 300 bucks and if you want to do just about anything with it you have to buy an overpriced hard drive attachment. Now they're coming out with this "Elite" SKU. I wonder how much the 120 GB attachment is going to cost. Probably about 4X as much as the same hard drive for the PC. How long is it going to be before they're releasing the 720? While I do think that the wait hurt Sony, it might have been a better choice than having to buy overpriced hardrive, Live, wifi, HD-DVD attachements, etc. like you do for 360.

Re:The PS2 is a poor yardstick.

[Physician]

You cannot state that PS2's first full holiday season was 2001 when the system was released Oct. 26, 2000 so your whole comparison falls flat.

Re:The PS2 is a poor yardstick.

[The-Bus]

No, the comparison does not fall flat. My choice of words could've been better. By "full holiday season" I meant that it had been out for the entire calendar year ("full-year" holiday season").

Comparing Holiday 2001 to Holiday 2007 for PS2 and PS3 is still valid as they are the same time period after launch.

Re:Hoping for the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

including non-standard, supposedly-destructive homebrew usage (Dreamcast GD-ROM's store data inversely to CD's; Data starts from the outside in. CD-R's, while compatible, are burnt from the inside out, causing the laser head to move more often from its default position, which logically leads to premature burnout)).

There's no logical connection between the position of the laser head and "burnout". The head is usually moved with a worm-gear like assembly and stress is entirely independent of position. Additionallly, GD-ROMs are not written outside in, and of course, don't spin reverse. The main difference is that the main data areais in CAV mode (i.e. constant RPMs), but it still starts on the inside, just after the audio track(s) and the short data/CD-ROM track.

wikipedia has more info about it.

Re: Hoping for the worst

[trdrstv]

There's nothing in the $500 PS3 that's not in the $400 XBOX - except for a Blu-Ray drive.

Correct, but the same cannot be said in reverse. For example the $400 X-box has twice the system ram of the $500 PS3. It also has a hardware scaler built in.