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."
Crappiest != least powerful. The PS2 was plagued by laser failures, faulty parts, poor case housing, and many other issues until well into its life as a console. At the time of its release, it was arguably considered less powerful than the Dreamcast (though that debate died quickly with GTA3), and its controller was (and still is) little more than a black, modified DualShock. Mind you, the DualShock was, IMO, one of the better controller designs of the time, but that doesn't make up for the initial issues with units dying, faulty lasers, having to tilt the system up onto its side to read properly, and so on. The PS2 also sold for astronomical amounts, and at a loss, despite faulty, low-quality hardware. Case in point: My father's early-gen PS2 is dying; Laser's gone. My Dreamcast, for example, still plays everything without a hitch, and was purchased in 2001 (with a lot of usage since then, 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)).
Compare with today, the Wii has decent (~X-Box Classic-alike, which aren't bad) graphics, a very slim form factor, high resilience to pain (hello, wii-mote! =D Meet LCD TV), one of the best overall first-parties behind it, an innovative, if a little mundane-looking controller, an installed user base, a broadening user base, and an extremely low price tag.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
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.
Er... the Genesis had plenty of momentum before the SNES came out, as the Genesis was released a whole two years earlier. But then the SNES came out and that, combined with a bunch of screwups by Sega of Japan, caused that momentum to disappear. That generation happened in precisely the opposite manner as what you're suggesting.
That's exactly why Nintendo saw its domination of the console market get eaten away, generation by generation. They hate releasing new consoles, and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so by the rest of the market. Their refusal to consistently refine and upgrade their hardware has hurt them before, and I'm sure it will hurt them again--developers are already complaining that they're reaching the limits of what the Wii can do, which at this stage of the game is a little sad.
I can say the same thing as others. I have a first run (second shipment to the store) ps2 and it has worked fine for god, 7 years now. However I can't say that about xbox. Ever try using any of the Xboxes that have the Thompson drive?
Although the xbox may be more powerful I would defiantly say that ps2 was the best console of its generation. Good controllers, good developer support, complete backwards compatibility, number 2 in graphics (over game cube), and it made more then 3 games I really felt like playing (something I can't say about game cube of Xbox)
Honestly I didn't think anyone didn't could still believe that the ps2 didn't win the previous console war. As for the next one, the ps3 has a lot of ground to cover (somewhere around 7 mill to sell) but neither the wii of the xbox360 have the numbers to be considered a true leader yet (neither have sold over 10 mill worldwide as of yet).
I'm no sony fanboy, I just go where the good games are. I haven't purchased any of the next gen consoles yet because so far none of them offer 3 titles I really want to play.
I couldn't stand the Gameboy, and never would buy one (note, Gameboy Advance SP was worthwhile), but it won. Year after year, it won.
People who say that the N64 was graphically inferior were just wrong. Nintendo's decision to go with cartridges again may have hurt it, but the N64 was graphically superior to both its competitors (if you liked polygons.... otherwise...). The Gamecube was graphically superior to the Playstation 2 which was arguably inferior to all three of its competitors and definitely to the two that mattered: XBox and Gamecube.
That didn't matter, if you wanted games you owned a PS2. Even if they were in a Sony America prohibited category, you were still more likely to get them on PS2 than on Gamecube or Xbox.
The Playstation 3 is too expensive for a video game system, period. A mistake on Sony's part, they'll have to reduce the price to compete (and that means reducing their own costs). If they can do it fast they might still have a shot. They will still win a partial victory if the PS3 pushes Blueray over the top, but they sacrifice dominance this generation for that. Business wise it may be worth it.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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".
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...