By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Switch is selling better than PS4, PS2, PS1, PS3, X360 launch aligned

DonFerrari said:
Mandalore76 said: 

When referring to the PS3 as a failure, it is very important to look at the context of what is being discussed.  It is very easy to say, how can 86 million units be considered a failure?  But, when you look at the bigger picture, it very definitely was.  In the 6th console generation, Sony sold nearly 158 million consoles and controlled 74% of the home console gaming market.  By the end of the 7th console generation, Sony had lost over 70 million customers, and had ceded 42% of the console gaming market back to its competitors.  This was despite Kaz Hirai stating in 2008 that the PS3 would go on to sell 150 million units by 2015.  Even worse than these precipitous drops was the fact that the PS3 cost Sony over $3.3 billion in losses.  The amount was so staggering in fact, that the PS3 losses completely negated all of the profits Sony had made in the previous gen on the 158 million PS2's that they had sold.  That's why the PS3 is considered a failure.  70 million lost customers, 42% of marketshare lost, and $3.3 billion+ lost that wiped out all profit from previous gen.  There is no good way to spin that trifecta.  The reason why 22 million Gamecube's sold isn't looked at in the same way, is because Nintendo didn't lose $3.3 billion while selling them.  Nintendo was profitable during that gen.  Same for Wii U.  Nintendo posted losses early in the gen, but had returned to profitability prior to the launch of the Switch.  It's all about context.

Yes, sure...

Well, he makes a good point. Everything must be considered in context. 86 million in isolation sounds great, but when you consider PS3 lost nearly half of PS2's marketshare, bled billions of dollars, and lost the 7th gen sales war, it's hard to see that as much of a success.

I mean, theoretically speaking, if Switch sold less than the 3DS lifetime and was a net financial loss it'd be hard to argue that as a real success story too.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 12 February 2019

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, sure...

Well, he makes a good point. Everything must be considered in context. 86 million in isolation sounds great, but when you consider PS3 lost nearly half of PS2's marketshare, bled billions of dollars, and lost the 7th gen sales war, it's hard to see that as much of a success.

I mean, theoretically speaking, if Switch sold less than the 3DS lifetime and was a net financial loss it'd be hard to argue that as a real success story too.

From failure to flop there is a big gap. And SNES to N64 would be the greatest flop ever on his metrics (Sony was newcomer and took PS1 several years before really lightning up), then what would be WiiU 85% drop?

And as I said, we have to accept that the expectations and bar is held very very very high for Sony where a single system selling below 100M is all doom and gloom and others when doing over 30M are celebrated even if at the time they were much older companies in the field or much much much richer.

Also the loss on PS3 was a calculated move, they bet on BD using PS3 to win the race, which it did royally, but costing that division a lot of money they expected to recoup on other divisions that couldn't push the format alone. So we know it's disengeneous to put the financial loss on the calculated move of the HW as PS3 being a flop. Let's remember it had higher attach ratio than PS2, and saw more 1st party sales (from what I can remember) than PS2 as well. So from SW perspective they made more money from HW sold.

Plus 

Xbox One goal was 200M https://stevivor.com/features/interviews/xbox-phil-spencer-brand-leadership/ (don't mind he thinking PS2 only sold 120M). So they reaching 1/4 of the target is a comparable flop?

Or would you preffer Yusuf Mehdi forecast of 400M to 1B Xbox One sold?? https://www.vg247.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-microsoft-aims-for-1-billion-lifetime-sales-100-million-xbox-360-units/

People at Nintendo expecting WiiU to sell 100M http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/nintendo-wii-u-sales/

For N64 coming from the successfull SNES and having no name Playstation and limping Saturn as competition. Higgins, David (April 22, 1997). "Nintendo's black box hides a brilliant brain". The AustralianThe Nintendo 64's simplicity is a key factor for projected sales of 50 million units over a decade-long product life cycle, according to Mr. Jim Foran, SGI's director of engineering for the project

Gamecube also had a 50M sales expectation by 2005 https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube

Yes, only Playstation 3 is flop in context.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Well, he makes a good point. Everything must be considered in context. 86 million in isolation sounds great, but when you consider PS3 lost nearly half of PS2's marketshare, bled billions of dollars, and lost the 7th gen sales war, it's hard to see that as much of a success.

I mean, theoretically speaking, if Switch sold less than the 3DS lifetime and was a net financial loss it'd be hard to argue that as a real success story too.

From failure to flop there is a big gap. And SNES to N64 would be the greatest flop ever on his metrics (Sony was newcomer and took PS1 several years before really lightning up), then what would be WiiU 85% drop?

And as I said, we have to accept that the expectations and bar is held very very very high for Sony where a single system selling below 100M is all doom and gloom and others when doing over 30M are celebrated even if at the time they were much older companies in the field or much much much richer.

Also the loss on PS3 was a calculated move, they bet on BD using PS3 to win the race, which it did royally, but costing that division a lot of money they expected to recoup on other divisions that couldn't push the format alone. So we know it's disengeneous to put the financial loss on the calculated move of the HW as PS3 being a flop. Let's remember it had higher attach ratio than PS2, and saw more 1st party sales (from what I can remember) than PS2 as well. So from SW perspective they made more money from HW sold.

Plus 

Xbox One goal was 200M https://stevivor.com/features/interviews/xbox-phil-spencer-brand-leadership/ (don't mind he thinking PS2 only sold 120M). So they reaching 1/4 of the target is a comparable flop?

Or would you preffer Yusuf Mehdi forecast of 400M to 1B Xbox One sold?? https://www.vg247.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-microsoft-aims-for-1-billion-lifetime-sales-100-million-xbox-360-units/

People at Nintendo expecting WiiU to sell 100M http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/nintendo-wii-u-sales/

For N64 coming from the successfull SNES and having no name Playstation and limping Saturn as competition. Higgins, David (April 22, 1997). "Nintendo's black box hides a brilliant brain". The AustralianThe Nintendo 64's simplicity is a key factor for projected sales of 50 million units over a decade-long product life cycle, according to Mr. Jim Foran, SGI's director of engineering for the project

Gamecube also had a 50M sales expectation by 2005 https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube

Yes, only Playstation 3 is flop in context.

Strawman much? Nobody ever said anything about N64, GC, XBO or Wii U being a success.

 

Also how do you figure Sony made more on PS3 software than PS2 software? Having a slightly higher tie ratio doesnt mean much when you sell ~700 million fewer units of software.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Well, he makes a good point. Everything must be considered in context. 86 million in isolation sounds great, but when you consider PS3 lost nearly half of PS2's marketshare, bled billions of dollars, and lost the 7th gen sales war, it's hard to see that as much of a success.

I mean, theoretically speaking, if Switch sold less than the 3DS lifetime and was a net financial loss it'd be hard to argue that as a real success story too.

From failure to flop there is a big gap. And SNES to N64 would be the greatest flop ever on his metrics (Sony was newcomer and took PS1 several years before really lightning up), then what would be WiiU 85% drop?

And as I said, we have to accept that the expectations and bar is held very very very high for Sony where a single system selling below 100M is all doom and gloom and others when doing over 30M are celebrated even if at the time they were much older companies in the field or much much much richer.

Also the loss on PS3 was a calculated move, they bet on BD using PS3 to win the race, which it did royally, but costing that division a lot of money they expected to recoup on other divisions that couldn't push the format alone. So we know it's disengeneous to put the financial loss on the calculated move of the HW as PS3 being a flop. Let's remember it had higher attach ratio than PS2, and saw more 1st party sales (from what I can remember) than PS2 as well. So from SW perspective they made more money from HW sold.

Plus 

Xbox One goal was 200M https://stevivor.com/features/interviews/xbox-phil-spencer-brand-leadership/ (don't mind he thinking PS2 only sold 120M). So they reaching 1/4 of the target is a comparable flop?

Or would you preffer Yusuf Mehdi forecast of 400M to 1B Xbox One sold?? https://www.vg247.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-microsoft-aims-for-1-billion-lifetime-sales-100-million-xbox-360-units/

People at Nintendo expecting WiiU to sell 100M http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/nintendo-wii-u-sales/

For N64 coming from the successfull SNES and having no name Playstation and limping Saturn as competition. Higgins, David (April 22, 1997). "Nintendo's black box hides a brilliant brain". The AustralianThe Nintendo 64's simplicity is a key factor for projected sales of 50 million units over a decade-long product life cycle, according to Mr. Jim Foran, SGI's director of engineering for the project

Gamecube also had a 50M sales expectation by 2005 https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube

Yes, only Playstation 3 is flop in context.

Show me where I ever said N64, Gamecube, Wii U or Xbox One were success stories.

The fact remains that PS3 lost billions of dollars, was outsold, and gutted Sony's console marketshare. It's hard to frame that as a success.



zorg1000 said:
DonFerrari said:

From failure to flop there is a big gap. And SNES to N64 would be the greatest flop ever on his metrics (Sony was newcomer and took PS1 several years before really lightning up), then what would be WiiU 85% drop?

And as I said, we have to accept that the expectations and bar is held very very very high for Sony where a single system selling below 100M is all doom and gloom and others when doing over 30M are celebrated even if at the time they were much older companies in the field or much much much richer.

Also the loss on PS3 was a calculated move, they bet on BD using PS3 to win the race, which it did royally, but costing that division a lot of money they expected to recoup on other divisions that couldn't push the format alone. So we know it's disengeneous to put the financial loss on the calculated move of the HW as PS3 being a flop. Let's remember it had higher attach ratio than PS2, and saw more 1st party sales (from what I can remember) than PS2 as well. So from SW perspective they made more money from HW sold.

Plus 

Xbox One goal was 200M https://stevivor.com/features/interviews/xbox-phil-spencer-brand-leadership/ (don't mind he thinking PS2 only sold 120M). So they reaching 1/4 of the target is a comparable flop?

Or would you preffer Yusuf Mehdi forecast of 400M to 1B Xbox One sold?? https://www.vg247.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-microsoft-aims-for-1-billion-lifetime-sales-100-million-xbox-360-units/

People at Nintendo expecting WiiU to sell 100M http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/nintendo-wii-u-sales/

For N64 coming from the successfull SNES and having no name Playstation and limping Saturn as competition. Higgins, David (April 22, 1997). "Nintendo's black box hides a brilliant brain". The AustralianThe Nintendo 64's simplicity is a key factor for projected sales of 50 million units over a decade-long product life cycle, according to Mr. Jim Foran, SGI's director of engineering for the project

Gamecube also had a 50M sales expectation by 2005 https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube

Yes, only Playstation 3 is flop in context.

Strawman much? Nobody ever said anything about N64, GC, XBO or Wii U being a success.

Also how do you figure Sony made more on PS3 software than PS2 software? Having a slightly higher tie ratio doesnt mean much when you sell ~700 million fewer units of software.

Read original argument that PS3 is considered a flop selling 85+M while others are being considered a success selling less than 30M.

You may have skipped (or I worded wrong) sold more SW per HW, not more SW total. And it wasn't 700M less, from what I remember was more like 500M (I remember last official numbers from Sony on total SW for PS2 being 1.5B and PS3 basically 1B). That is why I put more 1st party sold game and more 3rd party sold per HW.

curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

From failure to flop there is a big gap. And SNES to N64 would be the greatest flop ever on his metrics (Sony was newcomer and took PS1 several years before really lightning up), then what would be WiiU 85% drop?

And as I said, we have to accept that the expectations and bar is held very very very high for Sony where a single system selling below 100M is all doom and gloom and others when doing over 30M are celebrated even if at the time they were much older companies in the field or much much much richer.

Also the loss on PS3 was a calculated move, they bet on BD using PS3 to win the race, which it did royally, but costing that division a lot of money they expected to recoup on other divisions that couldn't push the format alone. So we know it's disengeneous to put the financial loss on the calculated move of the HW as PS3 being a flop. Let's remember it had higher attach ratio than PS2, and saw more 1st party sales (from what I can remember) than PS2 as well. So from SW perspective they made more money from HW sold.

Plus 

Xbox One goal was 200M https://stevivor.com/features/interviews/xbox-phil-spencer-brand-leadership/ (don't mind he thinking PS2 only sold 120M). So they reaching 1/4 of the target is a comparable flop?

Or would you preffer Yusuf Mehdi forecast of 400M to 1B Xbox One sold?? https://www.vg247.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-microsoft-aims-for-1-billion-lifetime-sales-100-million-xbox-360-units/

People at Nintendo expecting WiiU to sell 100M http://fortune.com/2016/07/08/nintendo-wii-u-sales/

For N64 coming from the successfull SNES and having no name Playstation and limping Saturn as competition. Higgins, David (April 22, 1997). "Nintendo's black box hides a brilliant brain". The AustralianThe Nintendo 64's simplicity is a key factor for projected sales of 50 million units over a decade-long product life cycle, according to Mr. Jim Foran, SGI's director of engineering for the project

Gamecube also had a 50M sales expectation by 2005 https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube

Yes, only Playstation 3 is flop in context.

Show me where I ever said N64, Gamecube, Wii U or Xbox One were success stories.

The fact remains that PS3 lost billions of dollars, was outsold, and gutted Sony's console marketshare. It's hard to frame that as a success.

So you jumped to defend only part of the argument but forgot to mention it? Because original point is PS3 being a flop by selling 85+M while others being a success selling less than 30M and all of that because of "context". There is as much or more context to say those systems are flop than to PS3 being a failure.

I explained the lost of billions but sure ignore it. On being outsold it was by a system that both companies admit didn't directly compete. Now if you want to say MS stole about half the sales PS3 could have coming from PS2 that would be another point.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Show me where I ever said N64, Gamecube, Wii U or Xbox One were success stories.

The fact remains that PS3 lost billions of dollars, was outsold, and gutted Sony's console marketshare. It's hard to frame that as a success.

So you jumped to defend only part of the argument but forgot to mention it? Because original point is PS3 being a flop by selling 85+M while others being a success selling less than 30M and all of that because of "context". There is as much or more context to say those systems are flop than to PS3 being a failure.

I explained the lost of billions but sure ignore it. On being outsold it was by a system that both companies admit didn't directly compete. Now if you want to say MS stole about half the sales PS3 could have coming from PS2 that would be another point.

Again, I never said systems selling less than 30 million were successful.

How other non-gaming divisions fared does not change the fact that PS3 lost billions. And tbh the "don't directly compete" card is only ever played when someone wants to try to claim their preferred system being outsold "doesn't count".



DonFerrari said:
zorg1000 said:

Strawman much? Nobody ever said anything about N64, GC, XBO or Wii U being a success.

Also how do you figure Sony made more on PS3 software than PS2 software? Having a slightly higher tie ratio doesnt mean much when you sell ~700 million fewer units of software.

Read original argument that PS3 is considered a flop selling 85+M while others are being considered a success selling less than 30M.

You may have skipped (or I worded wrong) sold more SW per HW, not more SW total. And it wasn't 700M less, from what I remember was more like 500M (I remember last official numbers from Sony on total SW for PS2 being 1.5B and PS3 basically 1B). That is why I put more 1st party sold game and more 3rd party sold per HW.

 

Nobody said they were a success though, that is something you made up.

Like I said, having a slightly higher tie ratio doesnt mean much when the overall number is significantly lower.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

So you jumped to defend only part of the argument but forgot to mention it? Because original point is PS3 being a flop by selling 85+M while others being a success selling less than 30M and all of that because of "context". There is as much or more context to say those systems are flop than to PS3 being a failure.

I explained the lost of billions but sure ignore it. On being outsold it was by a system that both companies admit didn't directly compete. Now if you want to say MS stole about half the sales PS3 could have coming from PS2 that would be another point.

Again, I never said systems selling less than 30 million were successful.

How other non-gaming divisions fared does not change the fact that PS3 lost billions. And tbh the "don't directly compete" card is only ever played when someone wants to try to claim their preferred system being outsold "doesn't count".

So will you say N64, GC, WiiU, Xbox are all flops? At what number of sales can we consider it a flop? Would 3DS also be a flop since it dropped to about half the sales of DS and that without even a strong competition?

Don't try to change the point. PS3 was made to lose that money to improve other divisions, it was a calculated move (you may claim it didn't work) not a result of failure. Let's say if Mercedes-Benz blow 15 Billion dollars in Formula 1 (just random number) while the prizes on the championship amounted to 10 Billion as a marketing stunt to promote their brand. Would you say that division flopped because it lost money or you would consider that they knew how much it would cost and how much it would earn directly, accept that particular venture would lose money and strategically decided for it anyway because of the benefits in other parts?

Unless you think Sony is dumb enough to think that selling a 800 console for 499 is lucrative by itself and not that they undercut the price of BD players at the time to push BD as a media format to win over HD-DVD in expectation that it would make they a lot of money on licensing and movie department, plus Cell would become standard for they to push on other electronics... Nope, they knew that would cost a lot of money for that department. If they had to prematurely discontinue PS3 as MS done with Xbox and Nintendo with WiiU and VirtualBoy then we would have evidence that the PS3 itself was a failed project not that the loses and movements were calculated and pushed from outside Playstation department.

zorg1000 said:
DonFerrari said:

Read original argument that PS3 is considered a flop selling 85+M while others are being considered a success selling less than 30M.

You may have skipped (or I worded wrong) sold more SW per HW, not more SW total. And it wasn't 700M less, from what I remember was more like 500M (I remember last official numbers from Sony on total SW for PS2 being 1.5B and PS3 basically 1B). That is why I put more 1st party sold game and more 3rd party sold per HW.

 

Nobody said they were a success though, that is something you made up.

Like I said, having a slightly higher tie ratio doesnt mean much when the overall number is significantly lower.

Will say again, go look at the begin of the discussion. That was about PS3 being a flop selling over 85+M and other systems being success selling less than 30M. Then we had mandalore with "context". It is the second time in this discussion where he makes some bad claims and people come to cover for him on wrong basis. First was his claim of PS4 having 2 pricecuts before 2 years in the market as justifcation for the flip on positions between PS4 and Switch, when in fact for the time shown on the OP PS4 didn't had any yet. And now is his justifying PS3 was a flop "in context" on an argument that included the other systems being success, which he didn't dismiss success.

No, you said that I said Sony mare more on the PS3 SW than on PS2, that is plain wrong.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said: 
zorg1000 said:

Nobody said they were a success though, that is something you made up.

Like I said, having a slightly higher tie ratio doesnt mean much when the overall number is significantly lower.

Will say again, go look at the begin of the discussion. That was about PS3 being a flop selling over 85+M and other systems being success selling less than 30M. Then we had mandalore with "context". It is the second time in this discussion where he makes some bad claims and people come to cover for him on wrong basis. And now is his justifying PS3 was a flop "in context" on an argument that included the other systems being success, which he didn't dismiss success.

This is the original post where 30 million is mentioned,

"PlayStation 3 (while I don't agree) is actually considered a flop to some. Ohhh man an 85+ million selling console being seen as a disappointment. Then what do you say about the OG Xbox, Gamecube and N64 systems selling like anywhere between the 15-30 million range."

You dont understand how English works if you think Streak said those consoles selling less than 30 million were successful and all Mandalore did was explain how there is more to success/failure than just unit sales, he never stated that sub-30 million was a success.

The only one making bad claims and trying to cover someone on a wrong basis is you at the moment.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
DonFerrari said: 

Will say again, go look at the begin of the discussion. That was about PS3 being a flop selling over 85+M and other systems being success selling less than 30M. Then we had mandalore with "context". It is the second time in this discussion where he makes some bad claims and people come to cover for him on wrong basis. And now is his justifying PS3 was a flop "in context" on an argument that included the other systems being success, which he didn't dismiss success.

This is the original post where 30 million is mentioned,

"PlayStation 3 (while I don't agree) is actually considered a flop to some. Ohhh man an 85+ million selling console being seen as a disappointment. Then what do you say about the OG Xbox, Gamecube and N64 systems selling like anywhere between the 15-30 million range."

You dont understand how English works if you think Streak said those consoles selling less than 30 million were successful and all Mandalore did was explain how there is more to success/failure than just unit sales, he never stated that sub-30 million was a success.

The only one making bad claims and trying to cover someone on a wrong basis is you at the moment.

You did see he also quote me right?

" The reason why 22 million Gamecube's sold isn't looked at in the same way, is because Nintendo didn't lose $3.3 billion while selling them.  Nintendo was profitable during that gen.  Same for Wii U.  Nintendo posted losses early in the gen, but had returned to profitability prior to the launch of the Switch.  It's all about context."

Seems very indicative that he doesn't consider GC or WiiU as flops or failures.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."