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

Forums - Sales - Vita's sales is now approaching the level of Dreamcast sales.

richardhutnik on 21 August 2012
Immortal said:
richardhutnik said:

Systems and companies and brands come and go in the videogame business.  If the Vita is going to end up not doing well, be dwarfed by the 3DS, and the PS3 maybe barely break into second, would have to wonder about the strength of "Playstation" as a brand.  I know some go "Playstation FOREVER!" and that is their brand, but the history of the videogame business shows a lot of instability in it.  

I'm sort of arguing against myself here, but Playstation just seems to be too big to fail, so to speak. I mean, the history of video games isn't particularly long, is it? The industry as we know it only really began with the NES. And, since then, Nintendo, Sega, Playstation and Xbox have been pretty much the only major competition. While there were some small fry in the early generations, I don't think they were ever in the same league as these four. Now, if we take these as the four major brands to ever have been in the industry, then only one of them to leave has been Sega. While Sony's financial situation is definitely as bad as anything has ever been, the Playstation brand is still much stronger than Sega was at its worst, in both raw numbers and proportion of the market. As such, I can understand the notion of the PlayStation brand dying off feeling unrealistic.

Names as brands get old and change.  A company may be too successful to leave, but labeling a product as never failing in the market is pushing it.  Even Nintendo doesn't keep the same name for the platform.

I would say that "Playstation" as a name is weakening.  It isn't top dog anywhere now.  And with this, it loses its FUD factor.  



Around the Network
Immortal on 21 August 2012
richardhutnik said:

Names as brands get old and change.  A company may be too successful to leave, but labeling a product as never failing in the market is pushing it.  Even Nintendo doesn't keep the same name for the platform.

I would say that "Playstation" as a name is weakening.  It isn't top dog anywhere now.  And with this, it loses its FUD factor.  


Wait, so are you actually affirming that you see a possible scenario in which the PlayStation brand no longer competes in the market because it simply whithers away due to a lack of popularity rather than being forced to shut down due to financial issues?

I'm not saying I disagree with you. That's just a pretty untraditional line of thought. I mean, while proportionally and historically, it's poor, but some odd 90 million sales for a console is not so bad as to get you thinking that the brand is going to die soon, is it?

By "too big to fail", I was just referring to (and probably misusing, :P) the common term. I just can't see it dying due to a lack of popularity anytime soon.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

NiKKoM on 21 August 2012
Immortal said:

By "too big to fail", I was just referring to (and probably misusing, :P) the common term. I just can't see it dying due to a lack of popularity anytime soon.


Well.. not wanting to diss Sony... but.... they had one of THE strongest brands ever with 200+ million devices sold: Walkman.... Marketing wise Walkman was a bigger brand then Playstation.



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

small44 on 21 August 2012

Sorry but we can't Judge with just one generation maybe the next will surpass the generation of psvita and 3ds and how can we know if people who buy the last generation and dosn't buy handheld in this generation goes to smartphone?



PS4 - over 100 millions let's say 120m
Xbox One - 70m
Wii U - 25m

Vita - 15m if it will not get Final Fantasy Kingdoms Heart and Monster Hunter 20m otherwise
3DS - 80m

HappySqurriel on 21 August 2012
Immortal said:
richardhutnik said:

Systems and companies and brands come and go in the videogame business.  If the Vita is going to end up not doing well, be dwarfed by the 3DS, and the PS3 maybe barely break into second, would have to wonder about the strength of "Playstation" as a brand.  I know some go "Playstation FOREVER!" and that is their brand, but the history of the videogame business shows a lot of instability in it.  

I'm sort of arguing against myself here, but Playstation just seems to be too big to fail, so to speak. I mean, the history of video games isn't particularly long, is it? The industry as we know it only really began with the NES. And, since then, Nintendo, Sega, Playstation and Xbox have been pretty much the only major competition. While there were some small fry in the early generations, I don't think they were ever in the same league as these four. Now, if we take these as the four major brands to ever have been in the industry, then only one of them to leave has been Sega. While Sony's financial situation is definitely as bad as anything has ever been, the Playstation brand is still much stronger than Sega was at its worst, in both raw numbers and proportion of the market. As such, I can understand the notion of the PlayStation brand dying off feeling unrealistic.


One of the questions I have been wondering for the past couple of months is "Has Sony learned their lesson from the PSP and PS3" and looking at the PS-Vita I'm not sure that they have ...

No matter how strong a brand is, poor decisions can lead to its eventual demise. While I wouldn't expect Sony to release another $600 console, Sony could make several mistakes that reduced the number of systems they sell in the next generation to nearly half the userbase of the PS3 and then the Playstation brand would be a couple miss-steps away from no longer existing.



Around the Network
KungKras on 21 August 2012

When is CoD coming out?
I can't wait for the PSVita's fate to be decided, so we can stop saying "wait for X" all the time in these discussions.

It's odd that there is no CoD for 3DS though, I mean, DS had CoD games....
IF COD is a hit, could we see a region divide, with Vita doing good in NA/EU with CoD and 3DS doing good in Japan with MH and japanese games?



I LOVE ICELAND!

Pokemonbrawlvg on 21 August 2012

You want to know what's weird?

The PS2 killed the Dreamcast, but now the Vita, made by the same company who made the PS2, is selling on the lines of the Dreamcast.

Sega has not forgotten!



Read my original story on Fictionpress (Shinigami Twin): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/2996503/1/Shinigami-Twin 

As well as my other one (Hell's Punishment): http://www.fictionpress.com/s/3085054/1/Hell-s-Punishment

Nintendo Network ID: kingofe3

Jay520 on 21 August 2012
Immortal said:

I'm also a bit confused about why this would be bad for third parties. In general, third parties have done better financially when there is a single dominating console so that they can focus on it alone. We're all aware of how so many gaming companies have been struggling this generation, in spite of the three main home consoles being far closer to each other in sales than usual.

I'd like to see some evidence for the bolded. People say this a lot but then their sole justification seems to be an occasional developer that shuts down.

Even if it is true, mere correlation does not imply causation. While third parties may be doing worse financially this generation, that's not the result of developers losing money on ports. It is the result of development costs increasing due to more powerful, complicated, and time-consuming hardware coupled with increased demand for more technically stunning games as stronger hardware allows for it.. This is not connected to developers porting games

In fact, I'd argue that porting games to multiple platforms has been beneficial to 3rd parties. The PS3 and the X360, for example, form a super installbase due to their sharp similarities. This results in a much higher potential for sales than in past generations. Let's compare the success of 3rd parties with super installbase of the PS3 and X360 of this generation versus the sole installbase of the most dominating home console ever - the PS2.

# of  PS2 only PS3 & X360
5m sellers

Grand Theft Auto: 3, VC, & SA
Final Fantasy: X, XIII, & X-2
Need for Speed: U1 & U2
Medal Of Honor: Fl & RS
Metal Gear Solid: 2
Kingdom Hearts: 1
Crash Bandicoot: TWoC
Madden: '04
Dragon Quest: VIII
Guitar Hero: II

16 titles / 10 IPs

Call of Duty: 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
Grand Theft Auto: IV
Battlefield: BC2 & 3
The Elder Scrolls: Olb & Skyrim
Assassin's Creed: 1, 2, BH & Rev.
Fifa Soccer: '10, '11, & '12
Red Dead: Redemption
Resident Evil: 5
Final Fantasy: XIII
Fallout: 3 & NV
Guitar Hero: LoR
Batman: AA & AC
Madden: '10
Medal of Honor: Reboot

27 titles / 14 IPs
10m sellers

Grand Theft Auto: 3, VC, & SA

3 titles / 2 IPs

Call of Duty: 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 
Grand Theft Auto: IV
Battlefield: 3
The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Fifa Soccer: '12

9 titles / 5 IPs
20m sellers

Grand Theft Auto: SA

1 title / 1 IP

Call of Duty: 4, 6, 7 & 8 

4 titles / 1 IP

 

A few notes about this chart

- Digital Sales are not included. If they were, they would help the PS360 list even more
- The PS360 is still very active. Current games are still selling and big games have yet o be released. In a few years, the PS360 list will be even more impressive.
- This only includes the PS3 & 360. This excludes other consoles which contributed to the super install base (wii, psp, etc)
- GTAIV will likely reach 20 million.
- Red Dead Redemption & Assassin's Creed will likely reach 10 million.
- Several Games will likely reach 5 million.
- The PS2 has a lead in 1 million  sellers by about 28 titles.

 

As you can see, porting to multiple consoles actually benefits 3rd parties as it increases the sales potential of the games. When you refer to how "so many gaming companies have been struggling" (which I don't think is much worse than last generation), that is the result of higher development cost because of expensive hardware & futher emphasis on technical prowess, not losing money on ports. Any money used for ports is countered multiple times over by the increased sales from that port.



HappySqurriel on 21 August 2012
Jay520 said:
Immortal said:

I'm also a bit confused about why this would be bad for third parties. In general, third parties have done better financially when there is a single dominating console so that they can focus on it alone. We're all aware of how so many gaming companies have been struggling this generation, in spite of the three main home consoles being far closer to each other in sales than usual.

I'd like to see some evidence for the bolded. People say this a lot but then their sole justification seems to be an occasional developer that shuts down.

Even if it is true, mere correlation does not imply causation. While third parties may be doing worse financially this generation, that's not the result of developers losing money on ports. It is the result of development costs increasing due to more powerful, complicated, and time-consuming hardware coupled with increased demand for more technically stunning games as stronger hardware allows for it.. This is not connected to developers porting games

In fact, I'd argue that porting games to multiple platforms has been beneficial to 3rd parties. The PS3 and the X360, for example, form a super installbase due to their sharp similarities. This results in a much higher potential for sales than in past generations. Let's compare the success of 3rd parties with super installbase of the PS3 and X360 of this generation versus the sole installbase of the most dominating home console ever - the PS2.

# of  PS2 only PS3 & X360
5m sellers

Grand Theft Auto: 3, VC, & SA
Final Fantasy: X, XIII, & X-2
Need for Speed: U1 & U2
Medal Of Honor: Fl & RS
Metal Gear Solid: 2
Kingdom Hearts: 1
Crash Bandicoot: TWoC
Madden: '04
Dragon Quest: VIII
Guitar Hero: II

16 titles / 10 IPs

Call of Duty: 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8
Grand Theft Auto: IV
Battlefield: BC2 & 3
The Elder Scrolls: Olb & Skyrim
Assassin's Creed: 1, 2, BH & Rev.
Fifa Soccer: '10, '11, & '12
Red Dead: Redemption
Resident Evil: 5
Final Fantasy: XIII
Fallout: 3 & NV
Guitar Hero: LoR
Batman: AA & AC
Madden: '10
Medal of Honor: Reboot

27 titles / 14 IPs
10m sellers

Grand Theft Auto: 3, VC, & SA

3 titles / 2 IPs

Call of Duty: 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 
Grand Theft Auto: IV
Battlefield: 3
The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Fifa Soccer: '12

9 titles / 5 IPs
20m sellers

Grand Theft Auto: SA

1 title / 1 IP

Call of Duty: 4, 6, 7 & 8 

4 titles / 1 IP

 

A few notes about this chart

- Digital Sales are not included. If they were, they would help the PS360 list even more
- The PS360 is still very active. Current games are still selling and big games have yet o be released. In a few years, the PS360 list will be even more impressive.
- This only includes the PS3 & 360. This excludes other consoles which contributed to the super install base (wii, psp, etc)
- GTAIV will likely reach 20 million.
- Red Dead Redemption & Assassin's Creed will likely reach 10 million.
- Several Games will likely reach 5 million.
- The PS2 has a lead in 1 million  sellers by about 28 titles.

 

As you can see, porting to multiple consoles actually benefits 3rd parties as it increases the sales potential of the games. When you refer to how "so many gaming companies have been struggling" (which I don't think is much worse than last generation), that is the result of higher development cost because of expensive hardware & futher emphasis on technical prowess, not losing money on ports. Any money used for ports is countered multiple times over by the increased sales from that port.


Each generation has left us with fewer and fewer developers because the increased costs to develop games has increased the sales needed to break even ...

The cost of porting games across platforms is a relatively small portion of the cost of developing games though. By licensing a game engine from a company like Epic you will (most likely) get pretty decent performance out of the box for the PC, XBox 360 and PS3 and (at worst) you would need an additional programmer throughout the life of the project to support all three platforms (for a rough cost of $300,000). In contrast, to develop games with graphics at the level of the XBox 360/PS3 ended up increasing costs on developers by 2 to 4 times; and this translated into an increase in development cost on average games of $10,000,000 to $15,000,000.



Jay520 on 21 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Jay520 said:

As you can see, porting to multiple consoles actually benefits 3rd parties as it increases the sales potential of the games. When you refer to how "so many gaming companies have been struggling" (which I don't think is much worse than last generation), that is the result of higher development cost because of expensive hardware & futher emphasis on technical prowess, not losing money on ports. Any money used for ports is countered multiple times over by the increased sales from that port.


Each generation has left us with fewer and fewer developers because the increased costs to develop games has increased the sales needed to break even ...

The cost of porting games across platforms is a relatively small portion of the cost of developing games though. By licensing a game engine from a company like Epic you will (most likely) get pretty decent performance out of the box for the PC, XBox 360 and PS3 and (at worst) you would need an additional programmer throughout the life of the project to support all three platforms (for a rough cost of $300,000). In contrast, to develop games with graphics at the level of the XBox 360/PS3 ended up increasing costs on developers by 2 to 4 times; and this translated into an increase in development cost on average games of $10,000,000 to $15,000,000.

Thanks. I thought I was probably wrong about that. I just wanted some justification before assuming his statement was accurate. My main point though, which I'm pretty sure on,  is that the decreasing developers is not the result of expensive porting.