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

Forums - Sales - Stranger than fiction: Is PS3 about to win the console sales war?

curl-6 on 05 March 2013
Kyuu said:
richardhutnik said:
Kyuu said:
Wright said:
Kyuu said:


X360 had an entire year headstart and cost less so what did you expect? MS was too desperate that they released an incomplete X360 (No wifi, no HDMI out, no mandatory HDD) just to compete. And let's not speak about the embarrassing failure rate at the first few years.


But isn't that double-edged? Sony released an overprice console that were supossed to sell based only on the name. It was not until some price cuts and additions when they started winning market share. Both parts did horrible when releasing their consoles.


The PS3 never added/removed anything important. It cost much because it had a built in BluRay drive. And they were selling at great losses so you should be grateful.

Backwards compatibility and number of USB ports is not important?  Did you just seriously write that?

It would also be nice if companies game out t-shirts to individuals obsessing over what place their console of choice showed up in the end as far as sales.  This way, they would get something of value for their useless harping and obsessing.

If you bought your PS3 at launch. You get a FULL console, you don't have to pay once in a while for a different add on. That never was Microsoft's way, they stealth-milk their customers (at least I felt so as an X360 owner) and I found it hard to appreicate.

Do you honestly believe that MS weren't aware of the hardware issues like RROD? Do you think they didn't know that at one point in time, HDMI, wifi, and Hardrive will be needed? I personally see Microsoft are more obsessed with money, they don't even allow custom HDDs to work on their console so you can buy their own accessories (the wireless network adapter cost 200 dollars in Australia back in 2008) And they charge you for online gaming.

The Xbox 360 was released incomplete, deal with it. You're kidding yourself if you think removing 2 USB ports is equivalent to Microsoft's changes. Sony did make huge mistakes by pricing the console too high and giving it too many features including PS2 compatibility. They were over confident. But they tried everything they can to keep their customers satisfied, even through serious financial crisis. I don't believe that was the case with Microsoft as they knew very well what they were doing from the beginning. And they got the money yet their greed is unmatched.

 

I'm not stopping you from believing whatever you wish so why are you upset? I'm anything you want me to be, good sir.


Removing PS2 compatibility was a big deal to me. To then claim "it only does everything" rubbed salt in the wound. They should have added after that:"except play PS2 games. And Linux."



Around the Network
slowmo on 05 March 2013
Kyuu said:

If you bought your PS3 at launch. You get a FULL console, you don't have to pay once in a while for a different add on. That never was Microsoft's way, they stealth-milk their customers (at least I felt so as an X360 owner) and I found it hard to appreicate.

Do you honestly believe that MS weren't aware of the hardware issues like RROD? Do you think they didn't know that at one point in time, HDMI, wifi, and Hardrive will be needed? I personally see Microsoft are more obsessed with money, they don't even allow custom HDDs to work on their console so you can buy their own accessories (the wireless network adapter cost 200 dollars in Australia back in 2008) And they charge you for online gaming.

The Xbox 360 was released incomplete, deal with it. You're kidding yourself if you think removing 2 USB ports is equivalent to Microsoft's changes. Sony did make huge mistakes by pricing the console too high and giving it too many features including PS2 compatibility. They were over confident. But they tried everything they can to keep their customers satisfied, even through serious financial crisis. I don't believe that was the case with Microsoft as they knew very well what they were doing from the beginning. And they got the money yet their greed is unmatched.

 

I'm not stopping you from believing whatever you wish so why are you upset? I'm anything you want me to be, good sir.

You're annoyed Microsoft had a responsible and sound pricing and marketing policy while Sony pissed money down the drain all this generation?  More people have still bought more 360's than PS3's so it's not like your opinion is the vast majority.  I bought a PS3 that allowed me to use Linux, but that got taken off me.  Microsoft have at least never removed a feature from the console that I paid for.  I think you may want to take off your rose tinted spectacles and understand this is a business and both companies are more than happy to do whatever it takes to take your money off you and both companies have done some pretty crappy things to their customers.  Sony have certainly NOT "tried everything to keep their customers satisfied".

You seem to forget that the 360 was released a full year before the PS3 and as such don't realize that HDMI wasn't the prevalent technology it is now and it wasn't needed for HD.  The PS3 had to have HDMI so it could use HDCP for Bluray movies.  Component was fine for full 1080p high definition in games and nearly all televisions supported component inputs.  The move to HD sources using HDCP and hence needed HDMI meant the component input was an ideal candidate to be removed from TV's to save costs.  As such Microsoft reacted by starting to produce the HDMI model.  This wasn't done by Microsoft to garner more sales, they just genuinely didn't understand the direction of television techonology like Sony which is understandable given Sony were one of the founding members of the HDMI standards.



thismeintiel on 05 March 2013

LMAO! How can people seriously believe that the PS3 is only going to ship ~8M-13M more consoles in the next 3 or so years? Hell, it will stand at 85M+ by the end of Sony's FY 2013 (ends March 2014). We still have yet to see the console hit $199, which it will in time for the holiday frenzy this year. This will also come with $150 Black Friday deals, which will help the PS3 stay flat or barely down YOY for Black Friday week. Then, either in '14 or '15, it will have a drop to $150, with a $99 Black Friday bundle.

Then you have to take in consideration that this year or next, Sony will be pushing the PS3 in the emerging regions they are currently pushing the PS2. The same areas that helped at to that ~33M that the PS2 sold outside of the US, EU, and Japan.

So, if the PS2 can sell 55M units after the PS3 has been released, I don't see why the PS3 can't sell at least another 25M units after the PS4 is released. I can definitely see it reaching ~105M, with the (slim) possibility of it hitting ~115M.



 

curl-6 on 05 March 2013
Kyuu said:

Another one accuses me for shit LOL. You guys can talk all you want but check your own profiles and your game collections, you guys are the only obvious fanboys here. You don't have a single Playstation game while I played more X360 than PS3. And my profile picture is a character from Tales of Vesperia, which is an X360 exclusive and my favorite RPG this generation. So do yourself a favor and stop accusing me being a fanboy, or "upset that Microsoft had better marketing policies" None of that makes sense and you don't want to embarrass yourselves further.

I'm fully aware of Sony's messes this generation. But in my opinion, they provided far superior customer services. The money you spent on Xbox live, repairing your console, buying add ons and everything. I could buy hundreds of games with it. You can continue playing the Xbox 360 apologists, that's your call.

I'm fully aware Microsoft beat Sony in Marketing and profits this gen by a long shot. But this is irrelevant to the subject.

You talking to me?



Psyberius on 05 March 2013
pezus said:

 

PlayStation 3, the Sony system that has been lagging behind its competitors for seven years straight, might end up being the best selling console of the current generation.

They lost about 5 years ago when MS Live started producing so much money for Microsoft that Microsoft is having a hard time finding places to spend it.

 

For all of you...bla bla console wars win/lose people....Sony and Nintendo have already lost...they could DOUBLE their current sales and still lose it just based on how much money MS Live makes.

 

Now, can we PLEASE stop these repetitive, add a graph yet its the same post over and over things?  Seriously.  This gen is over, MS won it with Live now its on to the next generation.





Around the Network
COLD_COBRA_ on 05 March 2013
Nsanity said:

You know what else is embarrasing? Sony losing a large chunk of it's console to a newcomer.

Like Nintendo losing 101 million to 32 Million by a newcomer? And then Having things done to them by the PS2 that Jennifer White has never even heard of.

Speaking of 32 Million. A lot of people on here were adament that the PS3 wouldn't surpass the N64. What happened to all that talk.

On topic.  It will get 100 million if it ever gets to $99. But who cares. It barely had the best games overall this gen.



curl-6 on 05 March 2013
Psyberius said:
pezus said:

 

PlayStation 3, the Sony system that has been lagging behind its competitors for seven years straight, might end up being the best selling console of the current generation.

They lost about 5 years ago when MS Live started producing so much money for Microsoft that Microsoft is having a hard time finding places to spend it.

 

For all of you...bla bla console wars win/lose people....Sony and Nintendo have already lost...they could DOUBLE their current sales and still lose it just based on how much money MS Live makes.

 

Now, can we PLEASE stop these repetitive, add a graph yet its the same post over and over things?  Seriously.  This gen is over, MS won it with Live now its on to the next generation.

The Wii won the 7th gen. 99m console sold.



ethomaz on 05 March 2013

Psyberius said:

They lost about 5 years ago when MS Live started producing so much money for Microsoft that Microsoft is having a hard time finding places to spend it.

MS needs to make money yet with the Xbox 360 to be profiable in this gen...

PS. You can remove FY03 and FY04 from the graph... even so I think the FY04 have some the R$D of the Xbox 360.



thismeintiel on 05 March 2013
Devil_Survivor said:
Just for some context, the systems who won each generation, won because it sold the most during that generation, not after. Meaning, after the new systems come the generation is over and cannot retroactively declare because the system pass the first finisher several years later. Do you that the Sega Genesis still sells pretty in South America? So if that ever happens to pass the SNES, are we going to say it won the fourth generation?

The Atari 2600,NES,SNES, PS1, PS2, who their generations because they sold the most in the years of those generations, not after.

Actually, using your SNES example disproves your winning theory.  SNES won because it sold better at the end of the gen, as well as into the next one.  During the gen, Genesis and SNES switched 1st and 2nd several times.  You should have picked a different example. 

In truth, all that matters is the final official numbers given.  If PS3 ends at 105M and the Wii at 104M, then the PS3 will be crowned the winner of this gen by future generations.  Most people will just check the totals on Wikipedia, and won't listen to Wii fans who might try to explain why Nintendo really won.  Same goes for 360 fans who might try to explain away the 3rd place finish.



 

Psyberius on 05 March 2013
curl-6 said:

The Wii won the 7th gen. 99m console sold.

The only number that means anything is how much money was made and neither Sony nor Nintendo are in the same Universe as Microsoft so PLEASE stop these dumb repeittive posts.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan