Quantcast
Offical Sell-in numbers for PS3 - credit to ArmGunar.

Forums - Sony Discussion - Offical Sell-in numbers for PS3 - credit to ArmGunar.

Mandalore76 said:
DonFerrari said:

When PS3 costed (lost) 200 per console, selling 80+M will be a much bigger loss than the 15M sold by WiiU.

Still, people will have a lot of good games and follow through to PS4 because of it, while WiiU wants to be forgotten.

The Wii U hasn't been forgotten though, because it was an evolutionary step towards the creation of the Switch.  The touchscreen of the Gamepad lives on in the Switch.  The ability to continue your console game if your wife/other wants to use the TV lives on in the Switch.  Successful new IP's born on the Wii U continue on the Switch with Splatoon 2 enjoying great sales and Mario Maker 2 being highly anticipated.  The amount of Wii U games that have been ported to the Switch and are selling well show that the Wii U had "a lot of good games" as well.  The Switch is basically a more streamlined Gamepad that has been fully liberated from it's tether to proximity to your TV if you need it to be.

WiiU was forgotten/hidden by Nintendo as fast as possible. And in the way you portray every console is a step to the next anyway.

paulrage2 said:
DonFerrari said:

When PS3 costed (lost) 200 per console, selling 80+M will be a much bigger loss than the 15M sold by WiiU.

Still, people will have a lot of good games and follow through to PS4 because of it, while WiiU wants to be forgotten.

The PS3 Slim costs production was about $ 240 and the company was selling for 299. Sony lost money until release PS3 slim, after this every console sold was a surplus. PS3 sold 1 billion software and left a great legacy for PS4. When Sony released the PS3 slim the numbers at the time was only about 24 million units. But theres no denie that the console was Sony biggest mistake.

From what we know PS3 ended up at a major loss when all was said and done, probably much higher than WiiU that was early cut.



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Mandalore76 said:

The Wii U hasn't been forgotten though, because it was an evolutionary step towards the creation of the Switch.  The touchscreen of the Gamepad lives on in the Switch.  The ability to continue your console game if your wife/other wants to use the TV lives on in the Switch.  Successful new IP's born on the Wii U continue on the Switch with Splatoon 2 enjoying great sales and Mario Maker 2 being highly anticipated.  The amount of Wii U games that have been ported to the Switch and are selling well show that the Wii U had "a lot of good games" as well.  The Switch is basically a more streamlined Gamepad that has been fully liberated from it's tether to proximity to your TV if you need it to be.

WiiU was forgotten/hidden by Nintendo as fast as possible. And in the way you portray every console is a step to the next anyway.

paulrage2 said:

The PS3 Slim costs production was about $ 240 and the company was selling for 299. Sony lost money until release PS3 slim, after this every console sold was a surplus. PS3 sold 1 billion software and left a great legacy for PS4. When Sony released the PS3 slim the numbers at the time was only about 24 million units. But theres no denie that the console was Sony biggest mistake.

From what we know PS3 ended up at a major loss when all was said and done, probably much higher than WiiU that was early cut.

The WiiU was discontinued as a product that wasn't selling well.  But, Nintendo pushed it as best they could (advertising early on could/should have been pushed much harder though to be honest) for just over 4 years until the Switch was ready to launch.  Unlike the Virtual Boy which Nintendo dropped in less than a year.  Or Sega's Dreamcast, which was discontinued after only 1 year 7 months in NA (2 years 4 months including Japan).  The Wii U still has a "Games Page" on Nintendo.com showing release dates updated through April of this year, over 2 years after discontinuation (https://www.nintendo.com/games/game-guide/#filter/:q=&dFR[availability][0]=Available%20now&dFR[platform][0]=Wii%20U&indexName=noa_aem_game_en_us_release_des).  Wii U is still featured all over the "My Nintendo" site with discounts for software and digital content (https://my.nintendo.com/reward_categories).  So, no, they haven't "hidden" or erased the Wii U from memory.

Nintendo's consoles typically change more radically from one system to the next than "every console" by comparison.  But, to put it in terms that you might more readily accept, it was a failure that was a necessary failure to get to where Nintendo wanted to go.  Like the PS3 adding the expensive Bluray drive to pave the way for the PS4, the Wii U gamepad was a necessary step towards the portable application of the Switch.



Mandalore76 said:
DonFerrari said:

WiiU was forgotten/hidden by Nintendo as fast as possible. And in the way you portray every console is a step to the next anyway.

From what we know PS3 ended up at a major loss when all was said and done, probably much higher than WiiU that was early cut.

The WiiU was discontinued as a product that wasn't selling well.  But, Nintendo pushed it as best they could (advertising early on could/should have been pushed much harder though to be honest) for just over 4 years until the Switch was ready to launch.  Unlike the Virtual Boy which Nintendo dropped in less than a year.  Or Sega's Dreamcast, which was discontinued after only 1 year 7 months in NA (2 years 4 months including Japan).  The Wii U still has a "Games Page" on Nintendo.com showing release dates updated through April of this year, over 2 years after discontinuation (https://www.nintendo.com/games/game-guide/#filter/:q=&dFR[availability][0]=Available%20now&dFR[platform][0]=Wii%20U&indexName=noa_aem_game_en_us_release_des).  Wii U is still featured all over the "My Nintendo" site with discounts for software and digital content (https://my.nintendo.com/reward_categories).  So, no, they haven't "hidden" or erased the Wii U from memory.

Nintendo's consoles typically change more radically from one system to the next than "every console" by comparison.  But, to put it in terms that you might more readily accept, it was a failure that was a necessary failure to get to where Nintendo wanted to go.  Like the PS3 adding the expensive Bluray drive to pave the way for the PS4, the Wii U gamepad was a necessary step towards the portable application of the Switch.

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.



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

DonFerrari said:
Mandalore76 said:

The WiiU was discontinued as a product that wasn't selling well.  But, Nintendo pushed it as best they could (advertising early on could/should have been pushed much harder though to be honest) for just over 4 years until the Switch was ready to launch.  Unlike the Virtual Boy which Nintendo dropped in less than a year.  Or Sega's Dreamcast, which was discontinued after only 1 year 7 months in NA (2 years 4 months including Japan).  The Wii U still has a "Games Page" on Nintendo.com showing release dates updated through April of this year, over 2 years after discontinuation (https://www.nintendo.com/games/game-guide/#filter/:q=&dFR[availability][0]=Available%20now&dFR[platform][0]=Wii%20U&indexName=noa_aem_game_en_us_release_des).  Wii U is still featured all over the "My Nintendo" site with discounts for software and digital content (https://my.nintendo.com/reward_categories).  So, no, they haven't "hidden" or erased the Wii U from memory.

Nintendo's consoles typically change more radically from one system to the next than "every console" by comparison.  But, to put it in terms that you might more readily accept, it was a failure that was a necessary failure to get to where Nintendo wanted to go.  Like the PS3 adding the expensive Bluray drive to pave the way for the PS4, the Wii U gamepad was a necessary step towards the portable application of the Switch.

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.

24 million PS3s was sold at loss, the other 63 million was profitable. Sony also did a lot of money with games sold and PS Plus since 2010. Mark Cerny already said that PS4 would never happen if PS3 didn't maked success. WiiU was a total desaster.



paulrage2 said:
DonFerrari said:

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.

24 million PS3s was sold at loss, the other 63 million was profitable. Sony also did a lot of money with games sold and PS Plus since 2010. Mark Cerny already said that PS4 would never happen if PS3 didn't maked success. WiiU was a total desaster.

Wasn't the WiiU responsible for Nintendo's first financial year loss and management taking a pay cut. both had negative impacts on their respective companies bottom line, the difference was the PS3 had a larger financial impact but the lengthy correction meant the division was in good shape when it came time to deliver the PS4 . The WiiU's financial impact was less but ongoing poor sales meant their ability to gain back ground was also less, while the poor WiiU sales magnified the already considerable pressure you have with a product launch. the state of the overall business meant they too were like Sony in a good place  financially in regard to launching the Switch.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Mandalore76 said:

The WiiU was discontinued as a product that wasn't selling well.  But, Nintendo pushed it as best they could (advertising early on could/should have been pushed much harder though to be honest) for just over 4 years until the Switch was ready to launch.  Unlike the Virtual Boy which Nintendo dropped in less than a year.  Or Sega's Dreamcast, which was discontinued after only 1 year 7 months in NA (2 years 4 months including Japan).  The Wii U still has a "Games Page" on Nintendo.com showing release dates updated through April of this year, over 2 years after discontinuation (https://www.nintendo.com/games/game-guide/#filter/:q=&dFR[availability][0]=Available%20now&dFR[platform][0]=Wii%20U&indexName=noa_aem_game_en_us_release_des).  Wii U is still featured all over the "My Nintendo" site with discounts for software and digital content (https://my.nintendo.com/reward_categories).  So, no, they haven't "hidden" or erased the Wii U from memory.

Nintendo's consoles typically change more radically from one system to the next than "every console" by comparison.  But, to put it in terms that you might more readily accept, it was a failure that was a necessary failure to get to where Nintendo wanted to go.  Like the PS3 adding the expensive Bluray drive to pave the way for the PS4, the Wii U gamepad was a necessary step towards the portable application of the Switch.

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.

I mentioned the Virtual Boy as the only time Nintendo cut and ran from released hardware.  The Wii U didn't receive that kind of treatment.  I acknowledge that Nintendo's advertising of the Wii U was poor.  Something they learned from and immediately rectified with the Switch by paying for a slot for their first Super Bowl ad ever.  When I say Nintendo pushed the Wii U as best they could, I'm speaking strictly regarding software.  Sony starved the Vita of 1st Party titles very early in its life and left it to die as you pointed out.  I think Sony's last 1st party games for Vita released in mid 2014?  Meanwhile, in late 2014 through 2015, Nintendo was still putting out their big guns and unveiling new IP:  Super Smash Bros (November 2014), Mario Party 10 (March 2015), Splatoon (May 2015), Super Mario Maker (September 2015), Yoshi's Wooly World (October 2015)...

I don't dispute your main point about bigger money loser.  I was just countering your statement regarding the Wii U being something Nintendo tried to bury from existence.



paulrage2 said:
DonFerrari said:

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.

24 million PS3s was sold at loss, the other 63 million was profitable. Sony also did a lot of money with games sold and PS Plus since 2010. Mark Cerny already said that PS4 would never happen if PS3 didn't maked success. WiiU was a total desaster.

Sorry man, but the loss from PS3 are well documented. PS3 lost about 3.5-5 Billion Dollars before starting to make any money. In the end it lost money to Sony.

PS3 was a commercial success, you are confusing both.

Mandalore76 said:
DonFerrari said:

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.

I mentioned the Virtual Boy as the only time Nintendo cut and ran from released hardware.  The Wii U didn't receive that kind of treatment.  I acknowledge that Nintendo's advertising of the Wii U was poor.  Something they learned from and immediately rectified with the Switch by paying for a slot for their first Super Bowl ad ever.  When I say Nintendo pushed the Wii U as best they could, I'm speaking strictly regarding software.  Sony starved the Vita of 1st Party titles very early in its life and left it to die as you pointed out.  I think Sony's last 1st party games for Vita released in mid 2014?  Meanwhile, in late 2014 through 2015, Nintendo was still putting out their big guns and unveiling new IP:  Super Smash Bros (November 2014), Mario Party 10 (March 2015), Splatoon (May 2015), Super Mario Maker (September 2015), Yoshi's Wooly World (October 2015)...

I don't dispute your main point about bigger money loser.  I was just countering your statement regarding the Wii U being something Nintendo tried to bury from existence.

Well let's say I exaggerated on the burying it.

But on SW support they didn't as best as they could. They even acknowledge they were having problems to develop due to HD. We can say at most that they supported well or better than they needed for the HW sold. But as I said they didn't increased the size or number of studios to make more games. Many people complain about the lack of good 1st party on WiiU because of it. Surely PSVita is worse on this case, because it would be easier for me to list 10 must haves of WiiU (considering or not crossgen) than for PSVita.



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

paulrage2 said:
DonFerrari said:

Putting Virtua Boy in the comparison doesn't make much sense since it was a basically a total catastrophe.

And sorry, but Nintendo didn't pushed the best they could. They certainly could have sold it much cheaper and increased number of releases by increasing the size of the team.

I actually don't remember anything outstanding they tried to make the sales of WiiU good. It seemed more like they saw early on that the system was going to do bad and just bought their time until they were ready for Switch (which probably couldn't have been released earlier, not only because it also is successor to 3DS, but also that technology for the affordable price wasn't ready yet), similar to Sony that as soon as they saw PSVita couldn't be a success they just let it die (versus PS3 where they done all they could because they thought it was still possible to sell good).

Anyway that isn't much relevant. The point I wanted to explain initially is why PS3 is considered a BIGGER MONEY LOSSER than WiiU. And that had to do with selling 85M consoles with a lot of them being 100-200 loss per sale, versus WiiU more or less selling 15M for break even.

24 million PS3s was sold at loss, the other 63 million was profitable. Sony also did a lot of money with games sold and PS Plus since 2010. Mark Cerny already said that PS4 would never happen if PS3 didn't maked success. WiiU was a total desaster.

Come on don't be that oblivious to the TRUTH. We know playstation division's financials and it did not trend above 0 until the PS4 released(this is wrong info. Lafiel corrected me below this very comment) while with the Wii U, ninty  was a little bit less than zero for 2-3 years and actually a bit above zero then on. The PS3 was a financial disaster while the Wii U was a sales disaster.

In the end ninty decided to not take losses to try to sell their console. That is their philosophy unlike Sony's. It's also the answer to the guy saying ninty didn't do enough. Other than lower price, ninty tried marketing and games while keeping losses at a minimum. Ninty definitely didn't sweep the WiiU under the rug and didn't abandon the Wii U like Sony did vita. That's what's called trying to make people forget. In the end the Wii U was a flawed console that will be remembered by the few that bought it as a very decent console that they enjoyed if nothing else. I know I'll be nostalgic for the Wii U. 

Last edited by Eagle367 - on 01 June 2019

Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
paulrage2 said:

24 million PS3s was sold at loss, the other 63 million was profitable. Sony also did a lot of money with games sold and PS Plus since 2010. Mark Cerny already said that PS4 would never happen if PS3 didn't maked success. WiiU was a total desaster.

Come on don't be that oblivious to the TRUTH. We know playstation division's financials and it did not trend above 0 until the PS4 released while with the Wii U, ninty  was a little bit less than zero for 2-3 years and actually a bit above zero then on. The PS3 was a financial disaster while the Wii U was a sales disaster.

seems like you don't know the Playstation divisions financials then, as they became positive midway into the gen - ofcourse not enough to turn around the large early gen losses

edit: FY2011, 2012 and 2013 (ending march 2013, well before PS4 launch) all had the playstation division in the black

Last edited by Lafiel - on 31 May 2019

Lafiel said:
Eagle367 said:

Come on don't be that oblivious to the TRUTH. We know playstation division's financials Andrew it did not trend above 0 until the PS4 released while with the Wii U, ninty  was a little bit less than zero for 2-3 years and actually a bit above zero then on. The PS3 was a financial disaster while the Wii U was a sales disaster.

seems like you don't know the Playstation divisions financials then, as they became positive midway into the gen - ofcourse not enough to turn around the large early gen losses

edit: FY2011, 2012 and 2013 (ending march 2013, well before PS4 launch) all had the playstation division in the black

I was mistaken then. But overall, we can agree that the PS4 was a financial disaster while the Wii U was a sales disaster. In the end both really didn't bog down the success of their successors (pun intended). I'm glad the switch and the PS4 both have so much potential that they can reach 100mil. PS4 is guaranteed at this point and I hope the switch follows through as well.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also