PS3 Sales Soar With Release of the Slim
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
My gut instinct tells me to agree with you on the wii, but from what I remember the statistics I saw suggest it has a higher attach rate than the other consoles too. (as in, on average, a Wii owner has more games than a 360 or PS3 owner.)Xanadu84 said:
Still, there's profit and then there's units sold. You'd have to know what's being referred to with a comment like that.
And no two ways about it, Nintendo systems are rarely unprofitable. Even the gamecube made them a profit, despite being in last place...
But then, I guess that's what seperates people that are good at business from those that are merely good at winning a popularity contest.
That seems to be Sony's plan. The PS2 has lasted for 2 console generations now. I believe Sony stated the PS3 would have a similar lifecycle.VanityGirl said:
well now that FFXIII just got a japanese release date, 17th dec, PS3 sales are gonna jump even higher in japan i bet
Oh please, sapre me the fan-boy opposition arguing. Just because I made a point about Sony doesn't mean I love Microsoft.bue519 said:
Nintendo makes like a few £/$/Y per console, Microsoft I think are starting to break into profit after breaking even for so long, and Sony is making a loss yes. If you look at the amount of exclusives each console has, it's pretty much even. However software sales, peripherals and online purchases and gaming are indeed where they look towards.Xanadu84 said:
If you want to look towards software sales as who is leading, discounting Wii Sports (a pack-in), the top 3 Wii games have sold 24m, 21m, and 17m respectively (Wii Play, Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii). If you want to discount the Wii series, it would then be down to Mario Kart Wii (17m) Smash Bros Brawl (8.5m) and Super Mario Galaxy (8m), while 3 of Sony's best sellers are GTA IV (nearly 6m) CoD 4 (4.5m) and MGS4 (4.16m) All consoles are getting big releases every few months, with Nintendo actually ready to release the big three next year (Metroid: Other M, SMG2, Zelda (rumoured)) along with a good chunk of third party releases, while Sony is releasing God Of War 3 and Gran Turismo (which I predict a sale of, oh I don't know, 7 or 8 million for Gran Turismo and 5 for God Of War?).
IMO, Nintendo aren't going anywhere just yet. Sony will pick up steam later in this generation because of the BD, but I don't see them coming first (whew).
So basically, Sony has been forced into shelling out even more money money for hard-ware with the production costs of the last still not paid for and people think that the system is out of the woods? All they're doing is ramping up the debts incurred from producing the PS3. The only way that Sony can possibly keep up in this race is by off-loading as much software as possible, not creating an even larger loss on hardware. Yes, a lot of people are impulse buying the Slim, but will they stay loyal to the system? Those who are the most likely to buy the PS3 software in the numbers required to make it commercially viable have already bought a system (or 3)and so this factors very little in the equation.
Instead of wasting money on stream-lining the console, Sony needs to stream-line its economic and industrial expenses. If Sony wants to push the 360 to 3rd place, than it needs to beat Microsoft at its own game. Microsoft is getting away with producing a technically inferior system by supporting it with a far more robust series of core titles that show the system as able to easily provide a similar experience as its more expensive counterpart. Why buy a game on the PS3 when you can buy it on the 360 at a cheaper price, with the 360 often boasting extra DLC and content?
Sony can't keep on bragging about the PS3's 'technical superiority' when it has little effect on in-game experiences. The PS3 must differentiate itself as THE console for hardcore gamers if it is ever to beat Microsoft, and this can only be achieved if it is percieved as providing something no other system can provide - an action that I doubt will come anytime soon, with the 360 propaganda team having laid so much ground-work and Sony no doubt rather skint at the moment!
Instead of wasting money on stream-lining the console, Sony needs to stream-line its economic and industrial expenses. If Sony wants to push the 360 to 3rd place, than it needs to beat Microsoft at its own game. Microsoft is getting away with producing a technically inferior system by supporting it with a far more robust series of core titles that show the system as able to easily provide a similar experience as its more expensive counterpart. Why buy a game on the PS3 when you can buy it on the 360 at a cheaper price, with the 360 often boasting extra DLC and content?
Sony can't keep on bragging about the PS3's 'technical superiority' when it has little effect on in-game experiences. The PS3 must differentiate itself as THE console for hardcore gamers if it is ever to beat Microsoft, and this can only be achieved if it is percieved as providing something no other system can provide - an action that I doubt will come anytime soon, with the 360 propaganda team having laid so much ground-work and Sony no doubt rather skint at the moment!
That source is dubious enough as it is (going entirely by the vague non-committal statement of a CEO) plus it's only for the regular Playstation 3 "fat". The same likely does not apply for the PS3 Slim as miniaturising without an increase in manufacturing cost is unlikely.harhol said:
Blu-ray diodes may be "cheaper" but DVD diodes are almost literally dime a dozen.
But my point remains, Software. Sony is a hardware company who's attitude is, in my experience, once they've got you to buy their tech they really don't give a toss about you as for the past 2 and a 1/2 years I've had my PS3, Sony has shown absolutely appalling competency when it comes to software support and that goes from games to firmware, online, connectivity and features.
A measly 17% software increase shows that something is just not working and software is supposed to be where Sony makes their money.
DRADIS C0ntact said:
Maybe, but the PS2 had some VERY strong titles behind it. PS3 needs tot step up to the plate and start releasing some big, strong titles for it to live as the PS2 lives.
There's only a few games I own on the PS3 that I consider to be strong titles. MGS4 being the biggest of the bunch.
Time will tell. Just looking at the bookcase full of PS2 games I have, I think titles are really what make a system live longer.
So far, I'm not TOO impressed by the PS3's game released, but hopefully this holiday will bring some things to keep the PS3 going.
Plug an ipod into your PS3, notice PS3 does not recognise and cannot play songs off it. Plug your ipod into any Xbox 360 and you can play any of the songs directly off it which is just so convenient.harhol said:
PS3 does not support the most basic features as NTFS file structure which means connecting any external hard drive or USB thumb drive is a pain in the arse to read if it can read it at all. It should be noted that both Linus and Mac OS can handle NTFS file structure so Sony has no excuse for their incompetence.
If somehow you do manage to get music onto your PS3 you cannot play it in games unless it actively supports it (very few games do), while on the Xbox 360 you can play any song on the 360's HDD, eternal HHD/thumb-drive or even directly off your ipod... for ANY game. This is such a great feature as replacing a games soundtrack with AC/DC or Black Sabbath = monumental win.
As for games, just go to Digital Foundry [http://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry/] of Eurogamer and you will see for 90% of the time (or at least the overwhelming majority of the games I want) the PS3 version of multiplatform games has inferior graphics and gameplay performance (frame-rate/screen tear) compared to the Xbox 360 version. This is almost entirely down to the PS3's idiosyncratic and convoluted design that makes it a living hell to program for i.e. not software friendly and Sony has not supported the software for it.
If most of these multiplatform game play better and often have better DLC and patch support on 360, that puts those games in the 360's line-up not PS3's line-up.
To me (and most others who own both consoles) PS3 has only got exclusives going for it and in all this time Resistance FOM and Killzone 2 are the only games I have seen worth it, having played R:FOM singleplayer and multiplayer to death, KZ2 turned out to have virtually no replay value and multiplayer destroyed by it's terrible controls. The main appeal of KZ2 was knifing the dumb AI with the 1-hit-kill Knife. If feels cheap but is WAY more fun than struggling to aim quick and accurately with the loose, clunky and laggy controls.
Online support is highly subjective but I have found it much worse than XBL and compared to PC it's a joke. You will find plenty of people who will agree with me on this.
Online content is WEAK for PS3. Almost every Downloadable game that is worth a damn is on XBL Arcade while PSN has virtually nothing. The DLC games that are on both XBLA and PSN, they are usually cheaper on XBLA by a factor of around 50% (remember, I am going by UK prices of MS points and PSN list price). Also, PSN Europe has not had a single Movie, TV show, song or anything of worth to download other can a couple of trailers that just tell me to go out and buy a blu-ray for £20 = half the price of a new game.
PSone downloadable classics have also been, in a totally unscrupulous move, region locked so what Japan gets America sees little of and Europe again gets virtually nothing. I'd love to download MGS1 and sync it with my PSP but Sony limits that to Japan only. Most likely because they are completely incompetent when it comes to negotiating the copyright of software on an international level.
Firmware updates have shown how far Sony is lagging behind, slowly adding features that 360 has had since launch. Though iPlayer is a neat feature they finally put on the XMB but is still impossible to get to work unless you are already very familiar with PS3's controls which is a huge oversight that is typical of Sony's software incompetence.
On "connectivity" I mean video output options, with HD output only supported via HDMI for PS3 while Xbox 360 can output HD resolution via VGA and I can testify the quality is on par with HDMI. The importance of a feature like this is you can get a "HD resolution" computer monitor with VGA input for much lower price than a HDTV which is usually the only viable option to get HDMI for HD gaming with PS3. As a result my PS3 has been stuck at my parent's plugged into their HDTV for almost the entire time I have owned it as I can't afford a HDTV of my own = £1000 = 3 times the price of the PS3 itself.
VGA is also much better supported than HDMI on projectors, video capture cards, portable monitors, EDTVs and so on.
Xbox 360 via VGA also fully supports all aspect ratios and computer monitor resolutions, scaling on hardware and without distorting the image at all. Try that with PS3 with some awkward HDMI-DVI adapter and you'll end up with a distorted image.
There are a whole bunch of other problems with PS3 mainly to do with Sony supporting it poorly that I have since forgotten about as I hardly play on it at all any more, especially since I've upgraded my PC and got my Xbox 360.
...
I think the only reason you are happy with the PS3 is you don't know what you are missing out on and don't realise how much you have been short changed.
By win, we mean "lead", which is what Sony's wanted all along. Why not? Like you said, they want to make a profit, fund new research, and become the leading company in the field. Turning in a profit isn't their biggest concern (hell, if I remember correctly the PS3 originally cost more to make than it made selling); it's developing a hardcore fan group and dominating the market. Which, by this point, I don't think they can do, given the 360's dominance over multiplayer experience (Halo, GoW) or the Wii's mom-appeal.Jumplion said: