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

Forums - Sales Discussion - PS3 could statistically surpass 360, may 2011--Jan. 2012

nightsurge said:
skeezer said:
nightsurge said:
^Its called an average. It includes both holiday and non-holiday considerations. Rather than separate the 2, he includes the total of all of them and just gives one simple average per month. Much easier that way.

The time frame may be right but those "per month" numbers are useless.

No they are not.  Ugh, do you not know what an average is?  The number he is giving as "per month" is no different to what you suggested doing.  Obviously some months outside of holidays it would never reach that amount, but the months during holidays it would exceed that amount and the overall average would turn out about right.

Trust us.  I really don't know how else to explain these simple calculations, but they are perfect exactly as they are.

Trust me, those numbers will never work out, same as being useless. what can you do with them? It's like saying theres an average of 100 Christmas trees sold per month last year at your store. Yet you've sold 0 this month. Does this mean you will fail at selling 1200 trees this year?Of course not.

 

those #'s = useless



^_^

Around the Network

The fact that the PS3 is outselling the 360 at 60+K per week without taking in account the holiday or slim boost still coincides with my numbers, hell it was 80k this week on the back of one game, and PS3 outsold 360 on Mass Effect 2 week by a considerable amount, not including Holiday numbers in an average is foolish to begin with.

OP Numbers are the logical, and most likely scenario for sales figures to pan out



...uhh...ill just put my favorite quote of all time here.

"Welcome to Pain, the second of three...You have dealt the first...now deal with me!!"

@ heywoodjablome

Ummm.... WTF?



theRepublic said:
Ssliasil said:
But do the math in the OP and then tell me how they are different :P

Your math isn't 'wrong', but I think your method has a problem.

You use the 30 weeks since the slim was launched.  That 30 weeks includes the huge spike from when the slim was launched.  That spike is never going to happen again.  It also includes the holidays, which is not really comparable to the rest of the year.  So your numbers include very few 'normal' weeks.  So because of that spike and the holidays, your numbers make it look like the PS3 will catch up faster than it really will.

possibly the best post in the thread



thismeintiel said:
nightsurge said:
kowhoho said:
nightsurge said:
Ssliasil said:
barozi, yes..there is...That was a complete fanboy comment...wow.

1.) The Slim wasnt launched in 2008,
2.) 2008 is completely irrelevant cause it doesnt cooincide with the current trend thats been running for 9 months now.
3.) again 2008 doesnt matter...at all anymore.

Actually this right here that you wrote is a fanboy comment.  What he said was true.

If I made this same thread at this time last year, the PS3 would have been down by an average of about 100k a week and the gap would forever increase.  You have to realize that momentum shifts will continue to happen each year.  This year it will favor MS (with slim, price cut, natal, etc).  There will be no year where Sony and MS somehow neutralize each other's moves so that a shift does not occur.

2007 - Sony price cut - Momentum goes to Sony

2008 - MS price cut - Momentum goes to MS

2009 - Sony price cut + Slim - Momentum goes to Sony

2010 - MS price cut + Slim - Momentum goes to MS

And so on....

Ugh, let's think of some different insult words, shall we? Fanboy is such a tired term. With regards to the pricecuts, the PS3 has greater current momentum than the 360 even at the same price. If the 360 got a pricecut, they may gain momentum well enough to match or barely surmount that of the PS3, but the following pricecut for the PS3 would just negate its effect once again and sell faster. This train of thought is all based on current trends of course.

See 2008.  Yeah that's what I thought.  360 price cut this year and PS3 no price cut this year.  That is what I see the most likely and will result in another massive sales surge for the 360 just like 2008 after everyone was claiming the exact line you just said.

So yeah, they will gain momentum and surmount the PS3 by quite a bit for about a year until Sony can afford to combat such moves.

Also, who said anything about insults?  I was merely commenting on his post, not the poster.  His post completely ignored simple logic and basically only took into account a single possible outcome that would favor his said console.

Oh and to any who were wondering, the 360 didn't have a price cut last year, so get over it would you?  When the PS3 80gb replaced the PS3 40gb no one called that a price drop (except for the raging fanboys perhaps, but the majority saw it for what it actually was).  The Elite replacing the Pro was no different.  SKU changes, not price cuts.

Lets all not forget just how much cheaper the 360 is to produce.  The 360 doesn't have all the added value of a Blu-Ray drive, Wifi, bluetooth, and yet they are selling for the same price?  Obviously the PS3 when selling for the same price is going to represent a much bigger value (not taking games or online into account).  The 360 is really raking in profits per console sold right now.  Even without a slim revision they could afford to cut ~$50-75 off the price tag and still break even on hardware.  With the slim looking ever more likely given some pretty believable evidence from both MS and other sources, that cost reduction should make it so MS can cut the price by a full $100 again if they want.  Then bundle in Natal so its a 250GB Elite Slim with Natal for $250 and a Arcade Slim with Natal for $199.  Could be even less.

No price cut?  LOL!  What's $400 to $300, then?  It's a price cut for their top of the line model.  So the Elite got a price cut, but the Arcade didn't.  But, it's still a pricecut.  And yes, the 80 GB did count as a price cut for that model.  However, it doesn't have as much impact, as the price for the low-end and top-end models stayed the same.  With the Slim launch, both prices were lowered.  Both price cuts, for the PS3 and 360 Elite, during the Slim launch make the most impact, as it lowered either the low-end or top-end price, or both.  Either way you cut it, it was a price cut.  I mean by your logic, when the Elite ever becomes the only model at $199.99, it's still not a pricecut, cause it just replaced the Arcade.  So, in other words, for the rest of the gen 360 will never have a price cut, only the PS3 will.  That's just a ridiculous, as well as biased, way of thinking.

And all those extras you listed for the PS3 is the exact reason it's outselling the 360 on a weekly basis, usually ~50K.  That's why what kowhoho is true.  With a major bump for the MS, it would only just catch the PS3 with weekly sales, or just barely pass it.  If PS3 also does a pricecut this year (most likely only ~ $25), then they will again outperform the 360.  You seem to not remember when the 360 dropped its price in '08, PS3 was still $400.  But now, it's in the sweet spot of $300, so sales for it aren't just going to go away because the 360 Elite is now $250.

No, it was not a price cut.  It was SKU changes.  In 2008, the Premium was replaced with the Pro and went from 20GB to 60GB.  This year the Pro was replaced by the Elite and went from 60GB to 120GB.  It was just an SKU change.  Would you rather they had gotten rid of the Elite and just upgraded the Pro's hard drive at the same price point?  Because that's all they did, which would have happened anyway as 60GB HDD's become less afordable/logical to include over a 120gb.  Only MS was smarter than that and decided to replace the Pro with the Elite and give an illusion of more value since the Elite was always known as the top of the line 360 model.  So really they got quite the advantage of doing the SKU change this way, even if fanboys now have more of a flawed argument this way.  The 80gb replacing the 40gb was not a price cut either.  Only fanboys called it that.

Also, it will only be beating it by ~50k per week once we get further away from holiday figures inflating the numbers.  And guess what, this exact same scenario, numbers and all, happened last year with the 360 being ahead by that amount weekly.  Go figure...  And before that, the PS3 in 2008 was ahead by ~50k per week on average and yet the 360 came out on top after their September price cuts.

Also, what's all this mumbo jumbo about $300 being a sweet spot?  I thought $200 was supposedly the sweet spot?  Also, what you fail to realize is that while a 360 Elite Slim with Natal will likely be $250, the PS3 with Move will be $400 again if they see no price cut, and $350 if they try to cut at least a little from the PS3 + Move bundles.  So yes, a $250 full package will outsell a $400 or $350 PS3 by quite a hefty amount.  Especially if people are considering multiplayer motion controls.  That's another couple hundred for PS3 costs and nothing for 360.



Around the Network
theRepublic said:
Ssliasil said:
But do the math in the OP and then tell me how they are different :P

Your math isn't 'wrong', but I think your method has a problem.

You use the 30 weeks since the slim was launched.  That 30 weeks includes the huge spike from when the slim was launched.  That spike is never going to happen again.  It also includes the holidays, which is not really comparable to the rest of the year.  So your numbers include very few 'normal' weeks.  So because of that spike and the holidays, your numbers make it look like the PS3 will catch up faster than it really will.

That huge spike will happen again whenever the PS3 drops to $200.  This will happen in either 2011 or 2012.  Plus, there are plenty of game launches that could cause a relatively large spike.  GT5 and possibly FFV13 come to mind.  Another factor is that Sony still haven't been able to fully address the shortages in America, yet.  So, sales will probably see a small boost once there are enough PS3 units in retail and online stores.



skeezer said:
nightsurge said:
skeezer said:
nightsurge said:
^Its called an average. It includes both holiday and non-holiday considerations. Rather than separate the 2, he includes the total of all of them and just gives one simple average per month. Much easier that way.

The time frame may be right but those "per month" numbers are useless.

No they are not.  Ugh, do you not know what an average is?  The number he is giving as "per month" is no different to what you suggested doing.  Obviously some months outside of holidays it would never reach that amount, but the months during holidays it would exceed that amount and the overall average would turn out about right.

Trust us.  I really don't know how else to explain these simple calculations, but they are perfect exactly as they are.

Trust me, those numbers will never work out, same as being useless. what can you do with them? It's like saying theres an average of 100 Christmas trees sold per month last year at your store. Yet you've sold 0 this month. Does this mean you will fail at selling 1200 trees this year?Of course not.

 

those #'s = useless

Ah, there's your problem.  You are assuming that he is saying it will fail when he's not.  An average is simply an average.  I did not see him supply any judgement of whether he though his numbers were likely or not, he just supplied them.  Just because you miss the average one month doesn't mean you won't make it up in other months.  No one is saying that if you don't hit the average every month you will fail, that's why it is an average because it takes into account both the high points and the low points.  These numbers are far from useless.  I still can't believe you aren't getting this....



brythoma said:
theRepublic said:
Ssliasil said:
But do the math in the OP and then tell me how they are different :P

Your math isn't 'wrong', but I think your method has a problem.

You use the 30 weeks since the slim was launched.  That 30 weeks includes the huge spike from when the slim was launched.  That spike is never going to happen again.  It also includes the holidays, which is not really comparable to the rest of the year.  So your numbers include very few 'normal' weeks.  So because of that spike and the holidays, your numbers make it look like the PS3 will catch up faster than it really will.

possibly the best post in the thread

Thank you.

I was beginning to wonder if anyone read it.  Ssliasil certainly ignored it.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
Switch - Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (2014/2017)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

maximus22 said:
nightsurge said:
maximus22 said:
kowhoho said:
It's concievable, both consoles have the same amount of breathing room for pricecuts as they are currently the same price, so pricecuts on both sides should still end up favoring the PS3 if these patterns continue. There is no reason to think that they won't, either.


How do you figure?  The 360 starts at $200 and the PS3 starts at $300.

But the majority of sales (~75% outside of holiday months) is the $300 360.  Starting price is irrelevant considering they have different SKU's.  If they PS3 had a hard drive-less SKU it would be ~$200 too, but that would be a bad thing because a PS3 has to have a big hard drive since so many games require installs.


Ah so.  I didn't know the percentage was that high.  Very well then. 

Well that was before the Pro was eliminated.  It used to be Pro + Elite made up ~75%.  Could be different now as I haven't seen a recent "average sold price" for the 360.



nightsurge said:
skeezer said:
nightsurge said:
skeezer said:
nightsurge said:
^Its called an average. It includes both holiday and non-holiday considerations. Rather than separate the 2, he includes the total of all of them and just gives one simple average per month. Much easier that way.

The time frame may be right but those "per month" numbers are useless.

No they are not.  Ugh, do you not know what an average is?  The number he is giving as "per month" is no different to what you suggested doing.  Obviously some months outside of holidays it would never reach that amount, but the months during holidays it would exceed that amount and the overall average would turn out about right.

Trust us.  I really don't know how else to explain these simple calculations, but they are perfect exactly as they are.

Trust me, those numbers will never work out, same as being useless. what can you do with them? It's like saying theres an average of 100 Christmas trees sold per month last year at your store. Yet you've sold 0 this month. Does this mean you will fail at selling 1200 trees this year?Of course not.

 

those #'s = useless

Ah, there's your problem.  You are assuming that he is saying it will fail when he's not.  An average is simply an average.  I did not see him supply any judgement of whether he though his numbers were likely or not, he just supplied them.  Just because you miss the average one month doesn't mean you won't make it up in other months.  No one is saying that if you don't hit the average every month you will fail, that's why it is an average because it takes into account both the high points and the low points.  These numbers are far from useless.  I still can't believe you aren't getting this....

I still don't get how they are usefull.....



^_^