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

Forums - Sales - is ps3 actually selling better than 360?

 

considering the variables, is ps3 more successful than 360?

Numbers are Numbers, 360 is doing better. 134 19.12%
 
Considering the variables... 512 73.04%
 
These Variables shouldn'... 26 3.71%
 
Other, please specify! 29 4.14%
 
Total:701
Tachikoma on 26 March 2013
J_Allard said:
Tachikoma said:
tres said:
Pokeslob said:

here's some variable that popped into my head when reviewing lifetime sales of 360 and ps3.

1. the 360 has a lead of less than 2mil according to the chart on the homepage.

2. 360 had an entire year to sell systems without the ps3 rivalary

3. when someone's 360 broke, and they went ahead and bought a new one without trying to repair the first one, that counts as a new sale.

that last point there, as someone who works in the gaming industry, I do notice a lot of people doing that, instead of trying to fix it they just go ahead an buy a new one.

with those variables in mind, would you say that the ps3 is actually more successful than 360, or not?

explain why, I'm interested :)


whon whon whon well must we sing the same ol yada yada that based on non-sense?  did you count my couple ylod ps3s that padded sonys numbers? i got variables too

the world hates microsoft

japan support their own  -- where would xbox be if they sold just 10 percent of ps numbers in xenophobia?  20k vs 500 this week

xbox has been kinda sluggish game wish for 3 years

even with all that here we are still worrying about which of these 2 or doing better


Psst, where does the xbox sell best?

Xbox might sell more in the US than it does anywhere else but please don't try to compare the two territories. While we give MS their best support here in the US, the Wii has still outsold it here this generation. And Sony chimes in with over 26,000,000 in PS3 sales. You compare that to Japan where Nintendo enjoys about an 800% sale rate over the 360 and Sony around a 600% rate and it's not even close. The guy is clearly referencing the way the Japanese culture just flat out refuses to support the Xbox.

The Japanese market is shrinking though. Sony won't enjoy that free space next gen. Or, at least, it won't be worth anywhere near 9-10 million next go around.

Again, the point is the software support, the japanese market is catered for by a massive selection of games that never see a release outside of the country, Sony and nintendo have broad software genres and support those genres well, with plenty of western releases and plenty of japanese releases, Microsoft does badly in Japan because only a very tiny number of games for the 360 there are really aimed at japanese customers, usually it's just western games which historically don't sell anywhere near as well in japan as they do in the west.

That software support that sony and nintendo provide in the region is WHY the gap is so big, where the original poster was insinuating that "japanese people just buy it because its japanese and avoid the xbox because its american", because that is possibly the stupidest assumption and stereotype i've ever heard, coming from people who clearly have either never been to japan or haven't been since the 80s, western culture is a very significant part of the japan of today with the majority of it's youth embracing western influences and products.

Every time i see a fanboy use the "japanese dont buy it because its not japanese" argument, i facepalm at the complete lack of firing neurons.



Around the Network
J_Allard on 26 March 2013

Except it's well documented how MS has tried to make strides in Japan but simply aren't given the time of day. And how Japanese giants like Sony bullied retailers into not carrying Xbox stuff.



J_Allard on 26 March 2013
Mazty said:
Carl2291 said:
The 360 is more successful.

Sold more.
Made more money.
Sold more software.
Increase in sales and marketshare over last generation.


Sold more? Not when you compare it to a week by week basis. Ignoring the year lead is arbitrary.

Made more money? Really? How much did fixing the RROD cost exactly? Considering it's failure rate was around the region of ~50%, that would cost a shit load. We need to see net profit. 

Since when was software sold indicitive of how the console sold? Arbitrary rule.

Yes the increase in sales and marketshare is indeed positive for the 360, but hardly negative for the PS3...That's like saying because Bolt won the 100m sprint that's a victory for him and a loss for everyone else...

lol wut



VGKing on 26 March 2013
Carl2291 said:
VGKing said:

People love to point out how unprofitable PS3 was and how it lost Sony billions, but the same can be said of Xbox 360.(but to a lesser extent)

No one can deny that the XBox 360 made more money than the PS3....it still doesn't change the fact that the console lost Microsoft billions of dollars just like the PS3 did for Sony. People seem to forget that the XBox 360 was also sold at a big loss then there was that RROD thing....

Kinect might have been profitable but those 24million weren't sold as stand-alone devices. Many of these were bundled and made little to no profit. Sure Xbox LIve Gold subscriptions have made Microsoft tons of money, there's no denying that....but they also have servers to maintain and with all the video services they've been adding lately, these costs have probably have increased exponentially since launch. The point is that despite all the profitable parts of the Xbox 360 business, overall they still lost money. 

Then there's all this "little stuff" that adds up such as the timed-exclusive deals. They paid $75million to make GTA IV a Day 1 multiplatform title + timed exlcusive DLC. Who knows how much they're paying Activsion for that timed-exclusive COD DLC. How much did they spend on those exclusive JRPGs?

Also there's also those billions of dollars Microsoft went through to introduce the first XBox. Microsoft bought their way into this business and they continued to do it with the Xbox 360. Has the Xbox business even broken even yet? No wonder they are chasing after entertainment apps and services over gaming. This business costs more than its worth. 

The bolded bits are the most important bits of your post, for what were talking about. Making more money or losing less money. Either way, its more successful as a product .  Especially when its held sustained profits.

And also because you brought the original Xbox into this... You forget to point outthat the true PS3 losses are hidden behind the PS2 and PSP profits from the same Years. The division had losses of 1.2 Billion and 2 Billion, if I remember correctly, while the PS2 was selling stupidly well and the PSP was hitting its stride. The 360 lost the same on one console that wasnt hidden behind 2 others.

The other bits are pointless, because all of them do it. All of them pay for exclusives. We just dont know how much each of them pay out for the deals...

S.T.A.G.E. said:


So you're saying if Sony didnt have the extra year they wouldn't be ahead of Microsoft? They are competing for the same crowd with relatively 90% of the same games. If Sony had launched with the 360 with the sales they have now they would've been six to eight million ahead of Microsoft. 

No, Im not saying that. Im not talking about "if". Im talking about right now. Not some alternate reality, S.T.A.G.E.

Microsoft does more than any other and that GTA IV deal is proof of that. They probably paid for Final Fantasy XIII multiplatform as well. The thing is that these games were supposed to be at least timed-exclusive to Sony consoles, not because Sony paid for it, but because that's just how good their relationship with Sony was. Look at the upcomign PS4 indie "The Witness". It's a timed-exclusive for PS4 and no money changed hands. Sure there may be times Sony does it, but Microsoft is notorious for it.

Doesn't matter which one is more successful because in the end if we really dig deep they can both be classified as failures.



Mazty on 26 March 2013
Carl2291 said:
Mazty said:
Carl2291 said:
The 360 is more successful.

Sold more.
Made more money.
Sold more software.
Increase in sales and marketshare over last generation.


Sold more? Not when you compare it to a week by week basis. Ignoring the year lead is arbitrary.

Made more money? Really? How much did fixing the RROD cost exactly? Considering it's failure rate was around the region of ~50%, that would cost a shit load. We need to see net profit. 

Since when was software sold indicitive of how the console sold? Arbitrary rule.

Yes the increase in sales and marketshare is indeed positive for the 360, but hardly negative for the PS3...That's like saying because Bolt won the 100m sprint that's a victory for him and a loss for everyone else...

Rather than pointlessly arguing against your... Erm... Points. Im gonna ask you a question. And everyone else here too.

Can you put forward an argument for how the PS3 has been more successful than the 360 over the entire generation? Yes, the entire generation. From the day the 360 launched.

It has almost the exact same market share yet launched a year later....Week on week that means it's sales have been higher, whilst also securing the next-gen format. Now go figure if MS want to use bluray, with every nextbox sold Sony will make cash. That seems like a brilliant move. 



Around the Network
Mazty on 26 March 2013
walsufnir said:

Where do you get this from?
slowmo said:
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:

Made more money? Really? How much did fixing the RROD cost exactly? Considering it's failure rate was around the region of ~50%, that would cost a shit load.


Where do you get this from?


Thin air because nobody knows the actual figure.  No point bringing facts into a debate on VG Chartz though is there lol


http://kotaku.com/5339555/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-over-50-percent



Mazty on 26 March 2013
sales2099 said:
Mazty said:
Carl2291 said:
The 360 is more successful.

Sold more.
Made more money.
Sold more software.
Increase in sales and marketshare over last generation.


Sold more? Not when you compare it to a week by week basis. Ignoring the year lead is arbitrary.

Made more money? Really? How much did fixing the RROD cost exactly? Considering it's failure rate was around the region of ~50%, that would cost a shit load. We need to see net profit. 

Since when was software sold indicitive of how the console sold? Arbitrary rule.

Yes the increase in sales and marketshare is indeed positive for the 360, but hardly negative for the PS3...That's like saying because Bolt won the 100m sprint that's a victory for him and a loss for everyone else...

It did sell more though. Pretending they launched at the same time is liek creating an alternate universe where SOny didnt poorly mismanage their business. It happened, they lainched late, and the sales will reflect that.

RROD costed over a vbillion, but PS3 lost a FEW BILLION by "just existing" in its first few years. PS3 factually lost more money and profited much later then 360 started to.

Software sold just means thats where the gamers are going. Cant say PS3 is more successful if the gaemrs buy 90 million more games on another console.....

Compared to PS2....it is nothing but negative for PS3. I cant see how youd spin it positive when talking gen over gen.

Comparing weekly sales is how business analysis is done, not by going "derp 1 year lead lets ignore that". The fact that it looks like the PS3 will over take, or come very close to, the 360 shows that it is a more popular console than the 360.

Software sold is irrelevant. Simple as that. 

Why compare it to the PS2? Markets change, this is reality. It's a case of staying relevant each and every time. When a sport club fails to achieve the exact same posistion as the previous year, is that year then deemed a failure? No. This again is another case os psuedo gamering analyser creating arbitrary rules.



Turkish on 26 March 2013

The PS3 has almost caught on with 360 which released 1 and 1.5 year earlier than PS3 and being $€200-300 cheaper. What does that tell you?



walsufnir on 26 March 2013
Mazty said:
walsufnir said:

Where do you get this from?
slowmo said:
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:

Made more money? Really? How much did fixing the RROD cost exactly? Considering it's failure rate was around the region of ~50%, that would cost a shit load.


Where do you get this from?


Thin air because nobody knows the actual figure.  No point bringing facts into a debate on VG Chartz though is there lol

 


http://kotaku.com/5339555/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-over-50-percent

 

"In a survey of the print edition of Game Informer, "... thanks for that ;)



Carl on 26 March 2013
VGKing said:

Microsoft does more than any other and that GTA IV deal is proof of that. They probably paid for Final Fantasy XIII multiplatform as well. The thing is that these games were supposed to be at least timed-exclusive to Sony consoles, not because Sony paid for it, but because that's just how good their relationship with Sony was. Look at the upcomign PS4 indie "The Witness". It's a timed-exclusive for PS4 and no money changed hands. Sure there may be times Sony does it, but Microsoft is notorious for it.

Doesn't matter which one is more successful because in the end if we really dig deep they can both be classified as failures.

But how can you say or prove that those deals werent worth what they paid? Take a look at the generational differences. Look how much of the market moved to the 360.

San Andreas PS2 - 20.8 Million
San Andreas Xbox - 1.95 Million

GTA4 PS3 - 9.66 Million
GTA4 360 - 10.18 Million

Final Fantasy sales on PS2 - 23.25 Million
Final Fantasy sales on Xbox - Zero

Final Fantasy sales on PS3 - 7.24 Million
Final Fantasy sales on 360 - 3.35 Million

The money is worth it if you can get the fanbase on your platform. It clearly worked with Rockstar and with Square Enix to a lesser extent (Japan). Its helped the 360 as a platform dominate in America with the Activision/CoD deal, too. I dont really see how getting an audience on your platform that was previously dominated by the competition, isnt classed as a success.

Mazty said:

It has almost the exact same market share yet launched a year later....Week on week that means it's sales have been higher, whilst also securing the next-gen format. Now go figure if MS want to use bluray, with every nextbox sold Sony will make cash. That seems like a brilliant move. 

So its been more successful because its sold essentially the same amount of units as the 360 (still less than) in a Years less time? And because Microsoft MIGHT use Bluray next gen?