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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 performing better than PS1?!

Kasz216 on 05 February 2010
Xoj said:
Kasz216 said:
Xoj said:
Kasz216 said:
MikeB said:
Darc Requiem said:

Kasz ended this thread a while back. It's fun to see the delusional keep ignoring him though. The original post ignores the fact that the PS1 would have been out for 4 fiscal years in Japan, 3 fiscal years in North America and Europe. The PS3 has been out for 4 fiscal years in Japan and North American, and 3.5 fiscal years in Europe. In this flawed comparison the PS3 has been on the market for 1 year longer than the PS1 in North America and six months longer in Europe. Thread logic = Fail.

Nomatter the headstart in 2 regions, taking equal timeframes last quarter the PS3 sold just as much as the PS1 did for the equivalent quarter. So IMO despite the much cheaper entry pricing of the PS1 at that point, the PS3 performs well and considering how well the PS1 did in the end certain fans too quickly made this gen out to be a sprint instead of a marathon.

PS3 actually performed BETTER last quarter then the PS1. 

6.5  million for PS3 vs 5.7 for PS1.   With the 5.7 being under Sony's old shipment figures.

Though whether such a comparison is valid is iffy.

Afterall since the PS3 had the 2 region headstart that means it's ahead in the "Sales ramp" so to speak by a year in the US... and like 9-10 motnhs ahead in the EU


For example 1 year later.... the PS1 shipped 3.41 million in the US in the equivlent quarter and 2.59 million in the EU.  Combined with the 1.45 million that shipped in Japan in 97...

 

and you've got ~7.45 million vs 6.5 million. 

though this is sometimes seen as irrelevan't, the ps3 was a year late to the 360 and more 1 year and 5 months in europe it strongest market.

ps3 not only passed 360 in europe but others in a blink of a eye.

in similar time frame ps3 it's performing abit better, both console with the hardware released worlwide

i think ps3 wont get to the ps1 100 millions, but will reach high numbers later on if sony plays theirs cars right imo.

one o them depends if nintendo decides to make hardware more powerful than the ps3, or just about the same, and the other if sony will tackle microsoft for multiple cpu console, with very expensive hardware.

now we now that early birds may mean they will win the gen.

I'm not sure what your point is here...

Though the reason why it's seen as irrelvent in the PS3/360 model is because they are of the same generation and your asking two different questions.

The PS3 will never gain that extra time on the 360... since the generation is going to end at the same time... one console may stop being sold before the other, but we don't know that for sure, both may get cut off at about the same time.  They're being sold primarily through the same timeframe.   It's an issue of how fast the PS3 is catchin up to the 360 in this case and will it beat it.

 

It's only when you compare generations do you adjust for launch, because it is here you need to do modelling based on sales arcs since you have both a valid starting and ending date for one of the two being compaired.  (Or both.)

 

The chance of the PS3 winning this generation though is still rather unlikely, even if it were to hit 100 million... which is still seen as less likely then likely.

 

 

there is some treding ps3 it performing alot better in the same timeframe and right now, than the 360, but many people see this as irrevelant because 360 was on price cut bump and performing better, now though ps3 got even a bigger bump on higher price point, in the same time frame.

they will cut alot that year advance by next price cut, from what i  see gap may go to 3.2m by end of the year, until microsoft next price cut, so until some months in effect we wont know how it will slow it down.

 

That it was performing better in the same timeframe honestly is kinda irrelvent.  Though not that it is right now.

Like I said... you only align launches when compairing different generations because the question your asking is actually different.



Around the Network
BladeOfGod on 05 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
Bamboleo said:
BladeOfGod said:
NiKKoM said:
jneul said:
BladeOfGod said:
Cool, if PS3 can stay on market for 10 years like PS1, it will sel over 100 million consoles

i have also pointed this out to other people and they called me a retard, lol, some people are just denying the power of the ps brand

Some people are denying kasz posts... >_>

Kazs always comes to positive PS3 sales thread to ruin it.

 

He said that PS1 was launched in US and Europe 1 year after it was launched in Japan and thats correct. However, he ignored the fact that PS1 was 299$ on its launch and PS3 was 599$ on its launch.He also ignored the fact that PS1 was launched before its competitors that PS3 was launched AFTER its competitor

And you're ignoring the fact that PS1 launch price of 299$ back in 1995 was much more money than 299$ nowadays.

 

 

True, but not really.  Even adjusting for inflation PS3 cost way more at launch.  Let me see if i can find the chart and edit it in.

Can't get a good picture of it and upload it but here's the article.

http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html

 

PS1 was only about 350 compaired to the PS3's price. 500-600.

 

So no matter how you try to spin it, PS3 was MORE EXPENISVE on its launch than PS1.



Kasz216 on 05 February 2010
BladeOfGod said:
Kasz216 said:
Bamboleo said:
BladeOfGod said:
NiKKoM said:
jneul said:
BladeOfGod said:
Cool, if PS3 can stay on market for 10 years like PS1, it will sel over 100 million consoles

i have also pointed this out to other people and they called me a retard, lol, some people are just denying the power of the ps brand

Some people are denying kasz posts... >_>

Kazs always comes to positive PS3 sales thread to ruin it.

 

He said that PS1 was launched in US and Europe 1 year after it was launched in Japan and thats correct. However, he ignored the fact that PS1 was 299$ on its launch and PS3 was 599$ on its launch.He also ignored the fact that PS1 was launched before its competitors that PS3 was launched AFTER its competitor

And you're ignoring the fact that PS1 launch price of 299$ back in 1995 was much more money than 299$ nowadays.

 

 

True, but not really.  Even adjusting for inflation PS3 cost way more at launch.  Let me see if i can find the chart and edit it in.

Can't get a good picture of it and upload it but here's the article.

http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html

 

PS1 was only about 350 compaired to the PS3's price. 500-600.

 

So no matter how you try to spin it, PS3 was MORE EXPENISVE on its launch than PS1.

Yep.  Though I wouldn't call inflation Spin.


Also fun note.  PS3 was cheaper at Launch then the Atari 2600.



BMaker11 on 05 February 2010

It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all



dahuman on 05 February 2010
chapset said:
So if the ps3 isn't doomed this week which one is doomed?!!?

Nothing can be as doomed as le Wii!



Around the Network
JaggedSac on 05 February 2010

I always like reading Kasz's posts.



Falcon095 on 05 February 2010
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
Falcon095 said:
MikeB said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
MikeB said:
mundus6 said:
Ps3 never been a complete failure not even when it launched for $600. The thing is that Sony really went overboard with PS3, they should just had made a console with similar specs to Xbox 360 and slapped on a Blu-ray drive on there and they would have won this generation hands down (over M$ anyway).

Although a lower specced PS3 would probably have been positive with regard to short term sales, I think it would have been bad regarding console sales in general. It would probably have eaten more into XBox 360 sales and to a lesser extend Wii sales and have resulted in a more juvenile userbase than is currently the case.

But I think from a grand perspective the current specs helps widen the console market as well as the console's long term potential (the 10+ year plan Sony talked about way before the PS3's release). Certainly also scientists and militaries are certainly more happy with the current specifications. From Sony's perspective not only short term sales are of importance, but also what the console provides to help advance the consumer electronics market.

Lower specs means a more juvenile userbase?

Than the ps1 and ps2 userbase were run by juveniles going by your theory.....

Yes, that was clearly more the case for the PS1 and PS2.

Higher specifications and higher entry pricing go hand in hand, thus more expensive devices are much better affordable to people who earn more money. Also making optimal usage of the PS3 requires an upgrade in home electronics like a surround sound setup and HDTV and not all kids are allowed easy internet access by their parents (for online only gaming like the excellent Warhawk or MAG, or excellent online only distributed content like Super Stardust HD or Trine). Most kids seem to have to settle with their parent's yesteryear's SDTV.

Of course the sales damage which would result from this was heavily invested on by Sony, so the PS3 faired much better than for instance the 3DO despite based on the specs the PS3 ought to have been priced higher in comparison. Probably the 3DO had a relative mature gaming audience of early adopters as well compared to for instance the PS1.

Are you saying that Sony did the right thing with the PS3?

For me personally, absolutely. (Not everything, but in general)

For dissapointed kids, probably not.

How is it better than the PS2 or the PS1 for you?

Who would fit in you disappointed kids description? Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

I was a PC gamer last gen. I love FPS games. Both PS1 and PS2 were weak consoles for that. But in hindsight having bought God of War 1 & 2 for my PS3, I underestimated what could be accomplished with that console, I should have given it more consideration. For me now the PS3 is much better for FPS and TPS gaming than the PC was. I also love well presented story telling like with the Uncharted and God of War series, PC games are usually not that great in this regard. The PS3 being much technically capabable than a PS2 in combination with a HDTV and a good surround audio set and the online and media functionalies are much improved as well.

Well there haven been other consoles that have been doing those stuff that you're mentioning of the PS3, actually most people think that the X360 is the king of shooters and online. So I don't think the PS3 has started anything like that, like you seem to be saying.

You didn't answer me.. Would Sony investors or people who expected the PS3 to be the PS1 or PS2 fit too?

 

 



||Tag courtesy of fkusumot - "Heaven is like a Nintendo theme park!"||Join the Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 American League HERE!||

NJ5 on 06 February 2010
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

BladeOfGod on 06 February 2010
NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

are you willing to make a bet that if PS3 lasts on market for 10 years it will outsell PS1?



Kasz216 on 06 February 2010
BladeOfGod said:
NJ5 said:
BMaker11 said:
It can't possibly be outperforming the PS1. PS3 is domed, after all

Your first sentence is correct, the second one is not.

 

are you willing to make a bet that if PS3 lasts on market for 10 years it will outsell PS1?

That is an irrelevent statment.

PS3 could sell 50 million consoles tommorrow because a Saudi trillionaire had a stroke...

It still wouldn't change the fact that the PS3 is not outperforming the PS1... or even performing to it's level... at current.  Which you know... is what the thread is about.


It's like saying "Switzerland can't beat the US in a war."  True now... and it's still true now... no matter how much stronger Switzerland gets or weaker the USA is.