Forums - Sales Discussion - Sony relying on heavily bundled and/or deep discount just to get games into million sellers list?

It is not a bad thing in the customers' side. We get more bang for our bucks with either a "free" game or half-priced game very early on the new releases. However, is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?

So much so that Nintendo is following their footsteps. Yes, Nintendo is copying Sony, again.

The difference is that Nintendo managed to sell those "free" games at (near) full price for years.



Around the Network
Galaki said:

It is not a bad thing in the customers' side. We get more bang for our bucks with either a "free" game or half-priced game very early on the new releases. However, is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?

So much so that Nintendo is following their footsteps. Yes, Nintendo is copying Sony, again.

The difference is that Nintendo managed to sell those "free" games at (near) full price for years.


I fail to see the point of this thread?



maverick40 said:
Galaki said:

It is not a bad thing in the customers' side. We get more bang for our bucks with either a "free" game or half-priced game very early on the new releases. However, is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?

So much so that Nintendo is following their footsteps. Yes, Nintendo is copying Sony, again.

The difference is that Nintendo managed to sell those "free" games at (near) full price for years.


I fail to see the point of this thread?

Let me explain it to you....... after so many years on a vg sales site you should know. ffs

Video game consoles are sold to make profit on games. It's the catridge business strategy where you sell the console to sell many more games (otherwise the games would be pre-loaded).

If games are bundled, there will be no profit made with the bundled game.

OP is arguing whether this strategy is a solid one. Now discuss.



I blame Sony because that's the third holidays of GT5 and no heavily bundle.

Heavily bundle is good for both... hardware and software.



Bundles, makes more people have access to a game, more potential DLC sales, and extra value meaning consumers are more likely to buy the actual console bundle.

Yeah, I don't see the problem really.

Around the Network
happydolphin said:
maverick40 said:
Galaki said:

It is not a bad thing in the customers' side. We get more bang for our bucks with either a "free" game or half-priced game very early on the new releases. However, is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?

So much so that Nintendo is following their footsteps. Yes, Nintendo is copying Sony, again.

The difference is that Nintendo managed to sell those "free" games at (near) full price for years.


I fail to see the point of this thread?

Let me explain it to you....... after so many years on a vg sales site you should know. ffs

Video game consoles are sold to make profit on games. It's the catridge business strategy where you sell the console to sell many more games (otherwise the games would be pre-loaded).

If games are bundled, there will be no profit made with the bundled game.

OP is arguing whether this strategy is a solid one. Now discuss.

Of course it isn't a bad thing, look at the sales ffs. Sony gets more consoles in households and the consumer gets good games. I fail to see any problem with this? 



maverick40 said:

Of course it isn't a bad thing, look at the sales ffs. Sony gets more consoles in households and the consumer gets good games. I fail to see any problem with this? 

He's talking about SW sales. He's saying that they're losing money on the games that are bundled. The question is, ultimately, do you agree with that, and if so, do the systems sell more games to make up for the lost opportunity?

That's what you need to discuss.

EDIT: Use numbers and do research if possible.

Ok guys, here's how you do it with numbers.

 

Non-bundled sales figures (worst-case):

Below you'll find the total SW sales figures.

PlatformNorth AmericaEuropeJapanRest of WorldGlobal
PlayStation 3 (PS3) 272.78 205.86 52.20 88.84 619.68

 Let's assume for the sake of argument (to put the point in OP's favor as much as possible and prove him wrong anyways), that each PS3 was a bundle. With that, the bundles breakdown comes down to:

PlayStation 3 (PS3) 25.03m 27.28m 8.71m 8.70m 69.72m

For a total non-bundled sw sales (Worst-case) of

PlayStation 3 (PS3) 247.75m 278.58m 45.49m 80.14m 549.96m

 

Royalties (worst-case):

Assuming that all games are 3rd party games (again to put OP at an advantage), here are the royalties made by Sony, for 7$ per game, the revenue would be:

PlayStation 3 (PS3) $1.73b $1.95b $0.32b $80.14 $3.85b

This is a best case scenario for OP.



Wait until you see what they are doing to plus customers? They giving them free games.............each month

 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)

I think that in the long term it's not bad. Like Proclus said, these people are tempted into buying DLCs (this is also true for PS+! Damn, do I feel the urge to buy a few DLCs for my free games...). Additionally such bundles increase the HW sales, so more people have the console and will eventually buy other games. It works, since recently there are more and more multiplatform games that sell better on PS3 than on X360, something that didn't happen some time ago. Just see Far Cry 3 or ACIII, and these are not the only examples. It does give a return later on.
After all, 1st party games primarily don't have to earn a lot of cash. They are to convince you to buy a platform.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

Around the Network
Scisca said:

I think that in the long term it's not bad. Like Proclus said, these people are tempted into buying DLCs (this is also true for PS+! Damn, do I feel the urge to buy a few DLCs for my free games...). Additionally such bundles increase the HW sales, so more people have the console and will eventually buy other games. It works, since recently there are more and more multiplatform games that sell better on PS3 than on X360, something that didn't happen some time ago. Just see Far Cry 3 or ACIII, and these are not the only examples. It does give a return later on.
After all, 1st party games primarily don't have to earn a lot of cash. They are to convince you to buy a platform.

While I fully agree with ACIII on the PS3 selling more than the 360 version, I just have to stop you there. While it's fully possible that the PS3 version of Far Cry 3 is going to outsell the 360 version, it's not dead-set.

Far Cry has always sold more in the U.S than in Europe, so really we'd have to wait and see what kind of numbers it does when it releases there, and whether it's going to be on the 360's side (Like Far Cry 3) or the PS3's side.

... To tell you the truth, I have no idea why I just went off-topic with this.