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
drkohler on 26 March 2013
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

Indeed, but we can at least guesstimate the losses from "normal industry behaviour". And we should define what we mean by "losses".

We know that MS had an ADDITIONAL (emphasis required) 1.2billion charged to rrod in a fy report, so we can conclude that losses (true losses) are anywhere from 1.3-?billions. Incidentally we know from that guy that once posted - and then got lawsuited the hell out of him - that the initial run of Xboxes were 100% doa) Then we have the losses from Kinect (which mostly are NOT true losses) probably around 0.5-1billion. On the PS3 side we have about 3billion losses over blu-ray (probably half are NOT true losses) and cell R&D (which was split into three companies). So my guess is both company lost about the same amount of money in true losses (meaning this was money not related to "real product development").



Around the Network
Tachikoma on 26 March 2013
J_Allard said:
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.

Well documented? by all means share these links, if you think releasing 5 games counts as 'strides', i really don't know what to say.



Mazty on 26 March 2013
walsufnir said:
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 ;)


When MS refuse to actually give the official figures, what is wrong with a large scale survey? I'm guessing you've never read a paper where surveys are legitimately used? You can't write off evidence like that "just because" ;)



Mazty on 26 March 2013
Carl2291 said:
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?

No not the same amount. Week on week it has sold considerably more. Look at the figures. In a market that consists of 3 consoles, being released the latest at the highest price and matching the closest competition shows that Sony made a product that quite clearly was popular. 

Bluray might be used, but either way they still make money from each bluray sold as they are part of the BDA, not to mention are one of the only manufactuers of bluray discs. Securing the HD optical format seems quite a smart move if you also consider Sony sell standalone bluray players and 1080p TV's. 



walsufnir on 26 March 2013
Mazty said:
walsufnir said:
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 ;)


When MS refuse to actually give the official figures, what is wrong with a large scale survey? I'm guessing you've never read a paper where surveys are legitimately used? You can't write off evidence like that "just because" ;)

There is nothing wrong with surveys but there is a difference between representative ones and "others". So no, there is nothing wrong with it, I just doubt it it something that one can believe in.



Around the Network
VGKing on 26 March 2013
Carl2291 said:
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?

Yeah, MIcrosoft was successful in bringing a lot of that PS2 fanbase over to Xbox, but it cost them a hell of a lot of money. There has to be a point when they have to stop buying their way to success. They can't keep on doing it forever. I don't think Sony spend anywhere near the amount of money on PS2 as Microsoft has spent on 360 in securing exclusives.

I think the worst thing that can happen next-gen is if MS/Sony get into a bidding war with each AAA game. That money could be spend better elsewhere or on your 1st party stuff. 



Mazty on 26 March 2013
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:

When MS refuse to actually give the official figures, what is wrong with a large scale survey? I'm guessing you've never read a paper where surveys are legitimately used? You can't write off evidence like that "just because" ;)

There is nothing wrong with surveys but there is a difference between representative ones and "others". So no, there is nothing wrong with it, I just doubt it it something that one can believe in.


Unless you can justify your doubt you are being mindlessly sceptical and the survey should be regarded as a legitmate source of information with regard to 360 failure rates. 



walsufnir on 26 March 2013
Mazty said:
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:

When MS refuse to actually give the official figures, what is wrong with a large scale survey? I'm guessing you've never read a paper where surveys are legitimately used? You can't write off evidence like that "just because" ;)

There is nothing wrong with surveys but there is a difference between representative ones and "others". So no, there is nothing wrong with it, I just doubt it it something that one can believe in.


Unless you can justify your doubt you are being mindlessly sceptical and the survey should be regarded as a legitmate source of information with regard to 360 failure rates.


Ehhh... no :)



Mazty on 26 March 2013
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:

When MS refuse to actually give the official figures, what is wrong with a large scale survey? I'm guessing you've never read a paper where surveys are legitimately used? You can't write off evidence like that "just because" ;)

There is nothing wrong with surveys but there is a difference between representative ones and "others". So no, there is nothing wrong with it, I just doubt it it something that one can believe in.


Unless you can justify your doubt you are being mindlessly sceptical and the survey should be regarded as a legitmate source of information with regard to 360 failure rates.


Ehhh... no :)

What a compelling argument. Do you appreciate the irony that you are trying to criticise the validity of a source of evidence and yet your agument is "er no"? If you can't justify your point, don't make one ;)



walsufnir on 26 March 2013
Mazty said:
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:
walsufnir said:
Mazty said:

When MS refuse to actually give the official figures, what is wrong with a large scale survey? I'm guessing you've never read a paper where surveys are legitimately used? You can't write off evidence like that "just because" ;)

There is nothing wrong with surveys but there is a difference between representative ones and "others". So no, there is nothing wrong with it, I just doubt it it something that one can believe in.


Unless you can justify your doubt you are being mindlessly sceptical and the survey should be regarded as a legitmate source of information with regard to 360 failure rates.


Ehhh... no :)

What a compelling argument. Do you appreciate the irony that you are trying to criticise the validity of a source of evidence and yet your agument is "er no"? If you can't justify your point, don't make one ;)


Thing is that you had to justify your point and it turned out your argument was based on an arbitrary survey from an arbitrary magazine. If you take this for real we can use all future polls here on this site as a representative survey.