Switch is selling better than PS4, PS2, PS1, PS3, X360 launch aligned

[DonFerrari]

zorg1000 said:

DonFerrari said:

What isn't seem the same way as a flop or a failure? You don't see the "context" gave that justify seeing PS3 as a flop and that these other aren't looked in the same way indicating they aren't failures?

What would you say on the PS4 sales because they had 2 price cuts against Switch no pricecut? No downplaying at all?

Streak was wondering how PS3 could be seen as a failure, Mandalore explained because it lost a ton of marketshare & money. He never actually gave his opinion on whether PS3, GC, Wii U are successes/failures.

Why are you bringing up separate conversations about separate things like they are relevant at all?

Right now youre just on a crusade to make it seem like Mandalore has some anti-Sony agenda.

So we moved the goalpost to he not saying if any of those systems are failure, but why others see it that way since you couldn't counter he saying that GC and WiiU aren't a case like PS3 that was considered a flop?

Not a crusade and not anti-Sony agenda, but that both posts were on the same direction of downplaying PS4 sales and rationalize PS3 flops with others not being. And you instead of saying what you think of that you try and change it on an attack one me questioning his motivations.

And also didn't see you saying if PS3 is a flop and N64, GC, Xbox, WiiU are failures?

Mandalore76 said:

DonFerrari said:

Don't worry, Sony <100~M flop, others >30M success, you just have to accept people expectations.

This is you & Streak claiming that Microsoft and Nintendo consoles that sold 30 million or less are considered to be successes.  Not myself or anyone you are arguing with.

So are N64, GC, WiiU, Xbox flops/failures?

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.

This me saying they aren't "looked at in the same way", and giving clear reasons why.

So if they aren't looked the same way, are PS3 flop and N64 or WiiU not failures?

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 Australian. The 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.

Then, you doubled down on your claim that PS3 is unfairly considered a failure, because Sony has set the bar so "very very very high" for themselves with their previous console successes.  But, this completely ignores everything I pointed out about lost marketshare, massive financial losses which completely erased their own profits from their unbelievably successful previous gen, and substantial amount of lost customers.  And you counter with, "Sony did that on purpose", and Sony didn't actually lose customers or marketshare, because the Wii shouldn't be considered home video game console competition to other home video game consoles.  I owned a PS2.  In the following gen, I made a conscious decision to buy a Wii, but not a PS3.  So yes, a competitor in the home console space took money from them.

Not "unfairly considered a failure", I have no problem to consider PS3 was a big loss for Sony even if I liked playing on it more than on PS1 and PS2 before. But for someone to consider 85M a failure shouldn't consider below 30M a success.

And yes although Sony didn't lose marketshare on purpose, the financial hit was a calculated move. But you can try and explain how do you think they intended to make profit selling 800 HW for 499? They knew they would lose money on the HW that was used to push BD and Cell, neither brought the money they wanted in other departments, but they losing money on PS3 because of it doesn't make PS3 itself the reason for the loss.

They lost marketshare, to X360. But they didn't lose the leading position because you and others may like to use the "when someone say Wii didn't compete with PS360 is because of....." Nintendo multiple times said they weren't competing with them, they were on blue ocean strategy. And great that you changed from PS3 to Wii, that certainly was the case of majority of the sales PS3 lost coming from PS2 not X360.

DonFerrari said:

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.

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.

Second time I made bad claims?  I made 1 erroneous mention of PS4 having received 2 price cuts in it's first two years, and apologized for being wrong.  What others defended was that the PS4 did have 1 price cut before the end of it's 2nd year.  Something the Switch has not had.  Funny how when someone else made a mistake earlier in this thread, you were quick to offer sympathy.  But, when I admit to being half wrong, you are quick to say I make "bad claims".  Now, explain to me where my "2nd bad claims" are.  

The OP have numbers that cover a period PS4 hadn't any pricecuts. It then had one before the end of it's second year. But will you claim that your post using PS4 having pricecut had no intention of justifying any sales difference? What exactly are you calling sympathy? 

ArchangelMadzz said: 
Funny how they keep swapping places when the other reaches the holidays..

 

jonathanalis said: 
Interesting how it change spots with ps4 every 6 months.

The PS4 also received 2 official price cuts during that time.  The Switch is still selling at original launch price.

 

 

This is not being half wrong. Is being fully wrong. PS4 didn't had any price cut on the period show in the graph of OP. And to what you replied seems like you tried to downplay PS4 position by it having 2 price cuts. Do you deny it?