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

Forums - Sales - Sony making more money from software than MS.

Mr Puggsly on 20 July 2010
Jordahn said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Basically Sony mostly just cares about their games. They've made it clear their focus is their IPs. They flood their console with quite a few 1st party titles that compete with sales of 3rd party.

http://kotaku.com/216256/sony-lost-ps3-exclusives-says-requisite-stupid-things

To the contrary, MS has put a focus on bringing great 3rd party exclusives to the 360 and support them. They even throw money around to get them.


How can anyone seriously take the link you posted as support for your statement is beyond any reason.  Trenton said:

"We really feel like we're well positioned to contribute platform-defining games from a first-party standpoint, and we're not dependent on third-party community to the degree that a Microsoft would be. That being said, you would be crazy to say that you would never entertain or not welcome exclusives. It's just a question of how deep into your pockets do you have to reach to secure that? Desperation breeds deep pockets. Confidence breeds the opposite. When it makes sense, you do the deal. When it doesn't, you pass."

It means that they will take advantage of a 3rd party exclusive when they think it's worth the investment while learning to be more independent.   It still doesn't mean that "developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles" just because SONY has more studios and titles that Microsoft.  And just because a console maker looses a game as an exclusive doesn't mean it's not coming to that same console as a multi-platform game.  This isn't the case either.  The PS3 still has its share of third party exclusives for whatever reasons whether you want to deny that or not regardless of your personal preferences.  And in regards to extras, games like Batman:AA, RDR, Toy Story, and the newest UFC have all have simultaneously releases on both the 360 and PS3.  And all PS3 versions of those titles received PS3 exclusive content.  And that's not including upcoming games like Metal of Honor, Mafia II, and Portal 2 which all will be getting PS3 exclusive content.  Stop being so one-sided, man.

Well they dropped the ball by letting MS getting ahold of many exclusives that were generally on Sony consoles. The PS1 and PS2 didn't dominate because of their great 1st party line up. The real attraction was and still is 3rd party in my opinion.

Like I said, Sony is paying for exclusive content because they are combating the exclusive content MS gets. We can assume that's considerably cheaper than straight out buying an exclusive. Nor would it be a good idea for Sony to lose more money.

I don't understand why you are caling me one sided. I just happen to prefer the exclusives the 360 has.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Ping_ii on 20 July 2010
Recon1O1 said:

Ping _ii:  Reading comprehension issues It appears.  The term 'genre' would mean that yes I believe Fable 3 will outsell GOW 3 comfortably and may actually finish as the highest selling exclusve rpg this gen.  Pokemon excluded of course.  Reach should easily triple KZ2 sales and double KZ3 in the shooter genre.  Disagree if you want but ease up on attack mode please.  The topics I discussed are all involved in the OP and were mentioned in previous posts.   I should have specified which moderator I guess but I obviously wasn't talking about you.  MakingMusic is a person and a fan as well as a moderator but his/her contention that the recent sw surge on PS3 was a permanent state of affairs seems highly suspect for the reasons detailed above.

Nothing I've said is unreasonable and I will wait for some sort of published survey or study before conceding that the new 360 sold a slightly higher percentage to existing owners.  Likewise if the tie ratio ever drops by even half a percentage point against Sony sw or the total sw gap ever shrinks to 50-60 million then you will have something to brag about and I can eat crow.  It won't imo. 

I have predicted elsewhere that GT5 will sell 10.5 m lifetime and Reach 12.5 and I expect those to be far more accurate than the lunacy coming out of some of the PS3 fans.  Hope GT5 does that well for you and your fav. box   I never bet here or in real life but I believe I am entitled to state my opinions anyway.  I certainly wouldn't bet that Fable3 which might hit 5m would beat out GT5 that should do twice that.

LOL funny you speak of comprehension issue....

How is GOW3 and Fable a comparable genre? 1 is hack and slash the other is a RPG, you know what this tells us? you obviously don't know a thing cause you don't even know what genre GOW3 is....

Reach to double KZ3 sales so? GT5 to triple Forza 3 whats your point?



Ping_ii on 20 July 2010
Mr Puggsly said:
Jordahn said:
Mr Puggsly said:
 

Basically Sony mostly just cares about their games. They've made it clear their focus is their IPs. They flood their console with quite a few 1st party titles that compete with sales of 3rd party.

http://kotaku.com/216256/sony-lost-ps3-exclusives-says-requisite-stupid-things

To the contrary, MS has put a focus on bringing great 3rd party exclusives to the 360 and support them. They even throw money around to get them.


How can anyone seriously take the link you posted as support for your statement is beyond any reason.  Trenton said:

"We really feel like we're well positioned to contribute platform-defining games from a first-party standpoint, and we're not dependent on third-party community to the degree that a Microsoft would be. That being said, you would be crazy to say that you would never entertain or not welcome exclusives. It's just a question of how deep into your pockets do you have to reach to secure that? Desperation breeds deep pockets. Confidence breeds the opposite. When it makes sense, you do the deal. When it doesn't, you pass."

It means that they will take advantage of a 3rd party exclusive when they think it's worth the investment while learning to be more independent.   It still doesn't mean that "developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles" just because SONY has more studios and titles that Microsoft.  And just because a console maker looses a game as an exclusive doesn't mean it's not coming to that same console as a multi-platform game.  This isn't the case either.  The PS3 still has its share of third party exclusives for whatever reasons whether you want to deny that or not regardless of your personal preferences.  And in regards to extras, games like Batman:AA, RDR, Toy Story, and the newest UFC have all have simultaneously releases on both the 360 and PS3.  And all PS3 versions of those titles received PS3 exclusive content.  And that's not including upcoming games like Metal of Honor, Mafia II, and Portal 2 which all will be getting PS3 exclusive content.  Stop being so one-sided, man.

Well they dropped the ball by letting MS getting ahold of many exclusives that were generally on Sony consoles. The PS1 and PS2 didn't dominate because of their great 1st party line up. The real attraction was and still is 3rd party in my opinion.

Like I said, Sony is paying for exclusive content because they are combating the exclusive content MS IS ALSO PAYING FOR. We can assume that's considerably cheaper than straight out buying an exclusive. Nor would it be a good idea for Sony to lose more money.

I don't understand why you are caling me one sided. I just happen to prefer the exclusives the 360 has.

FIXED



zarx on 20 July 2010
legend92(3) said:

Sony's SW -  72 Million (14.5 million first party) Includes PS3 (50.8), PS2 (6.8) and PSP (15.2) Sales

MS's SW - 46.6 Million (4.3 million first party) 360 sales only.

Using the estimates of $48 for a first party games and $12 for third party games. We see that Sony earns a total of about 1.38 billion dollars compared to 707 million dollars for MS. 

Interesting seeing PS3 SW sales being higher than 360 SW even with a 5 million lead, also interesting to see Sony making so much money form it but still posting loss after loss.

might as well add Nintendo for balance's sake eh? 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

CrazyHorse on 20 July 2010
Jordahn said:
CrazyHorse said:
Rawnchie14 said:

Also - I think we're forgetting a lot of 360 exclusives have had very large scale sales, particularly Halo and Gears of War - where they handily blow away that of SCE's publications.

To publish significantly more exclusive games, and just managing to sell more games than your competitor?  I don't think that's anything to bust open the champagne for in the Sony camp.  More games = more publication costs.  You want fewer games, with large scale sales for each on average.

As a consumer I know which of those options I'd prefer!

I would prefer more gaming options that apply to me as a gamer provided that they are of quality.  Thankfully, that has been the case.  WHY would I want to say to myself, "WOOOOOOW!!! That game made sooOOooOoo much money.  That mean it's has to be teh awesome, I'm gonna teh like it, and I wil play it foreva..."  Nope.  I'll stick with reality.

Well of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Although Rawnchie is right in that fewer games with greater sales is more desirable in terms of making profit than a lot of games with average sales it's not quite that straight forward. The fact that Sony has so many first party titles is one of the biggest appeals of the system and one of the reasons I think the system will enjoy another long life cycle. Obviously I'm not claiming that Sony wouldn't absolutely love to have Halo though!



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 22 July 2010
Ping_ii said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Jordahn said:
Mr Puggsly said:
 

Basically Sony mostly just cares about their games. They've made it clear their focus is their IPs. They flood their console with quite a few 1st party titles that compete with sales of 3rd party.

http://kotaku.com/216256/sony-lost-ps3-exclusives-says-requisite-stupid-things

To the contrary, MS has put a focus on bringing great 3rd party exclusives to the 360 and support them. They even throw money around to get them.


How can anyone seriously take the link you posted as support for your statement is beyond any reason.  Trenton said:

"We really feel like we're well positioned to contribute platform-defining games from a first-party standpoint, and we're not dependent on third-party community to the degree that a Microsoft would be. That being said, you would be crazy to say that you would never entertain or not welcome exclusives. It's just a question of how deep into your pockets do you have to reach to secure that? Desperation breeds deep pockets. Confidence breeds the opposite. When it makes sense, you do the deal. When it doesn't, you pass."

It means that they will take advantage of a 3rd party exclusive when they think it's worth the investment while learning to be more independent.   It still doesn't mean that "developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles" just because SONY has more studios and titles that Microsoft.  And just because a console maker looses a game as an exclusive doesn't mean it's not coming to that same console as a multi-platform game.  This isn't the case either.  The PS3 still has its share of third party exclusives for whatever reasons whether you want to deny that or not regardless of your personal preferences.  And in regards to extras, games like Batman:AA, RDR, Toy Story, and the newest UFC have all have simultaneously releases on both the 360 and PS3.  And all PS3 versions of those titles received PS3 exclusive content.  And that's not including upcoming games like Metal of Honor, Mafia II, and Portal 2 which all will be getting PS3 exclusive content.  Stop being so one-sided, man.

Well they dropped the ball by letting MS getting ahold of many exclusives that were generally on Sony consoles. The PS1 and PS2 didn't dominate because of their great 1st party line up. The real attraction was and still is 3rd party in my opinion.

Like I said, Sony is paying for exclusive content because they are combating the exclusive content MS IS ALSO PAYING FOR. We can assume that's considerably cheaper than straight out buying an exclusive. Nor would it be a good idea for Sony to lose more money.

I don't understand why you are caling me one sided. I just happen to prefer the exclusives the 360 has.

FIXED


Oh wow, I was under the impression the 360 got exclusive content because developers just love MS. Thanks for clarifying.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

paulrage2 on 22 July 2010

Softwere sales is more important than hardware sales.



JH on 22 July 2010

Off-topic, but i don't seem to be able to post a new post: 

Does anyone have any idea where i could find global revenue charts for the gaming industry? Preferably total revenue world wide 2000-2009.



Jordahn on 23 July 2010
Mr Puggsly said:
Jordahn said:
Mr Puggsly said:
 

Basically Sony mostly just cares about their games. They've made it clear their focus is their IPs. They flood their console with quite a few 1st party titles that compete with sales of 3rd party.

http://kotaku.com/216256/sony-lost-ps3-exclusives-says-requisite-stupid-things

To the contrary, MS has put a focus on bringing great 3rd party exclusives to the 360 and support them. They even throw money around to get them.


How can anyone seriously take the link you posted as support for your statement is beyond any reason.  Trenton said:

"We really feel like we're well positioned to contribute platform-defining games from a first-party standpoint, and we're not dependent on third-party community to the degree that a Microsoft would be. That being said, you would be crazy to say that you would never entertain or not welcome exclusives. It's just a question of how deep into your pockets do you have to reach to secure that? Desperation breeds deep pockets. Confidence breeds the opposite. When it makes sense, you do the deal. When it doesn't, you pass."

It means that they will take advantage of a 3rd party exclusive when they think it's worth the investment while learning to be more independent.   It still doesn't mean that "developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles" just because SONY has more studios and titles that Microsoft.  And just because a console maker looses a game as an exclusive doesn't mean it's not coming to that same console as a multi-platform game.  This isn't the case either.  The PS3 still has its share of third party exclusives for whatever reasons whether you want to deny that or not regardless of your personal preferences.  And in regards to extras, games like Batman:AA, RDR, Toy Story, and the newest UFC have all have simultaneously releases on both the 360 and PS3.  And all PS3 versions of those titles received PS3 exclusive content.  And that's not including upcoming games like Metal of Honor, Mafia II, and Portal 2 which all will be getting PS3 exclusive content.  Stop being so one-sided, man.

Well they dropped the ball by letting MS getting ahold of many exclusives that were generally on Sony consoles. The PS1 and PS2 didn't dominate because of their great 1st party line up. The real attraction was and still is 3rd party in my opinion.

Like I said, Sony is paying for exclusive content because they are combating the exclusive content MS gets. We can assume that's considerably cheaper than straight out buying an exclusive. Nor would it be a good idea for Sony to lose more money.

I don't understand why you are caling me one sided. I just happen to prefer the exclusives the 360 has.

SONY "dropped" the ball by picking up a bigger and better one in the form of their 1st and 2nd party exclusives.  And I called you one sided because your statement:

"Perhaps that's part of the reason some developers have chosen to side with the 360 for exclusivity of certain titles..."

... still holds very little if any water since the PS3 still has its share of 3rd party exclusives whether you prefer them or not.  One could argue that some 3rd party titles become PS3 exclusives because of not wanting to compete against high sales of titles such as Halo.  So we can conclude that high Halo sales are a bad thing,  I'm not saying this is the case, and I doubt I ever will.  But you are trying to negatively spin that SONY having more developing studios to work with is causing more harm than good by applying the belief that it forces developer to develop games on the 360 instead as an exclusive.  If you want to believe that, then fine.  But who knows all the reasonings why "game a" is a PS3 exclusive given the fact that SONY has more studios to work with than Microsoft.  That's how you're being one sided, nothing to do with your gaming preferences.  But then again, maybe your gaming preferences are so extreme to where it actually makes you one sided.

:)



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

mightyERone on 23 July 2010

Sony posted 1.6 billion in loses to their stock holders...  Sony has yet to turn a profit on PS3 anything. Any monies being made form other parts of that devision can't cover PS3 sowhere is this money Sony is making?