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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Global Hardware Dec 13-19 - Switch Sales Top 75M, PS5 Tops 4M

SKMBlake said:
brute said:

Should have just done a disc less version or one with less memory.

That's what they did. And they then decided to make it also weaker for no reason.

Not for no reason; so that they could have a $300 SKU at launch. No way they could do that while keeping it as powerful as the X.

Whether it pays off is another matter entirely, but they didn't make it "weaker for no reason".



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
brute said:
sales2099 said:

PS2, Wii, Switch come to mind. 

PS2, Wii and Switch didnt have weaker versions, power wise.

What did you mean by "historically" then?

AFAIK this is the first time there has been a console launch with a power split like this, previously when there have been multiple launch SKUs it has been based on available memory & features.



Ryng said:
PAOerfulone said:

While I agree on the Vita and 3DS. The PS4 and XBO are still in production. They may be on their way out, but they're not dead yet. They've still got some tread on those tires. What I'd do is take out the Vita and 3DS, put the PS4 and XBO in their place, and then insert the PS5 and XSXS in those open slots right next to the Switch.

No matter how much PS4/XBO are selling right now, they are old gen consoles.

The graph literally say "current gen consoles", so they don't belong there.

A while ago,  the "Current Gen" graph was listed as "Current Platforms." The reason they did that was because of the confusing argument around whether or not the Switch was 8th gen or 9th gen.

The "Last Generation" tab has all the 7th gen consoles. And the "This Generation" tab has the PS4, Xbox One, and SWITCH. And it's been like that ever since the Switch came out in 2017, replacing the Wii U. Even though the Wii U was Nintendo's actual, real 8th generation console. So really, the Wii U, PS4, and Xbox One all should've been removed once the Switch came out, since the Switch is, by traditional definitions, the first 9th generation console. Yet we kept hearing debates about "Is the Switch 8th gen or 9th gen?"

If it's the latter, then in that case the Switch never belonged on that tab alongside the PS4/Xbox One and those two should've been booted to
"Last Generation" with 7th gen being tossed entirely as soon as the Switch came out and the Switch should've been by itself, even though the PS4 and Xbox One were still in the middle of their life cycles with the PS4 in the middle of its peak year.

If it's the former, then the Switch should be booted along with the PS4 and Xbox One now that the PS5 and XSXS are here since the Switch would also be considered old gen.

So which is it?

The archaic and dated conception of generations is exactly that, archaic and dated. 



SKMBlake said:
sales2099 said:

PS2, Wii, Switch come to mind. 

Not comparable

Because it pokes a hole in your point. Sure this is the first generation where one company made 2 specd skus, but the principle is the same. “Weak” consoles have appeal so long as the price and games are there. 

History has shown us that high end specs matter to people like us, but less so to the majority of people that invest in video games. You missed the news where MS said 40% of new Xbox gamers at launch bought a Series S? 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 01 January 2021

Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

A few interesting tidbits for each console:

Nintendo Switch:
- The Switch is on track to pass the 3DS' lifetime sales next week.
- It is on track to pass the SNES in Japan next week and become the 8th best selling system of all time over there
- It is also on track to crack 10 million units sold in the "Rest of the World" region, becoming just the 2nd Nintendo system to do it (DS). It's on track to pass the DS (12.43 million) in this region at some point next year, as well as the PS3 (12.53 million). 

PlayStation 4:
- The PS4 is on track to surpass 115 million units lifetime next week. It is inching closer and closer to the Game Boy for 3rd on the all time list and should eventually pass it at some point in either late 2021 or early 2022.
- It is on track to surpass 20 million units sold in the "Rest of the World" region and becoming just the 2nd system ever to do it (PS2).
- It is on track to surpass 48 million units sold in Europe by the end of the year and would only need an additional 2 million from there to become just the 3rd system in history to surpass 50 million units sold in Europe (PS2 and DS).

Xbox One:
- It has a solid chance of surpassing 50 million units lifetime by sometime in the 2nd half of 2021 or 1st half of 2022.



Around the Network
sales2099 said:
SKMBlake said:

Not comparable

Because it pokes a hole in your point. Sure this is the first generation where one company made 2 specd skus, but the principle is the same. “Weak” consoles have appeal so long as the price and games are there

History has shown us that high end specs matter to people like us, but less so to the majority of people that invest in video games. You missed the news where MS said 40% of new Xbox gamers at launch bought a Series S? 

It's obviously not the same. One system hasn't been marketed the same, hasn't seen the same of level of stock, performance is noticeably different and it comparatively offers a weak power to price ratio. It's also competing directly with the Series X.

If anything players seem to want the primary, standard and most widely available system. The one front and centre in advertising since launch- because usually there's no cutbacks it's the same system their friends/family own and their experience isn't limited.



 

HigHurtenflurst said:
SKMBlake said:

Not comparable

PS1, NES, Gameboy, DS.... The generation winner has generally been the "weaker" console, SNES/Megadrive were the only ones on par with each other (and they both beat down the more powerful competitors at the time)

That said I agree it's not really comparable as the X & S are two versions of the same console, the lower powered version is just a less attractive proposition even at $200 less

I do think the lack of disc-drive is a bigger issue though, even people who have switched to buying their games online like to have the option available... look at PS5 in Japan, the digital edition is only about 1/5th of total sales and I think the only difference with that version is the lack of disc-drive.

Microsoft have clearly overestimated the appeal of the S, just as Nintendo have with the Switch Lite (either that or they are trying to push those models for other reasons)

Each company has a different strategy with their SKUs.

Sony wanted to advertise a lower entry price, but because they are losing a lot more money on the digital PS5, they've significantly limited its production to push people towards the more expensive SKU. It's similar to their PS3 launch strategy where they had a $499 SKU, but they actually don't want it to sell well.

Microsoft wanted an SKU to undercut whatever Sony had planned, but at the same time they took so much out of their Series S that they can afford to produce it in great numbers. IIRC, Phil Spencer went on record that he believed that Series S was going to sell more than Series X lifetime, so yes, Microsoft clearly overestimated demand for a gimped Xbox.

Nintendo's Switch Lite coincided with the 3DS business fizzling out, so it is about securing dominance in a market that nobody else is in anymore. Nintendo didn't want to leave any window open for a competing low-cost portable console. However, they have yet to figure out an appropriate split in the production ratio between the original Switch and the Lite. The former has always been produced in greater numbers, but it still hasn't been sufficient. A notable chunk of the Lite's appeal is the ability to add another Switch to a household, but at this point of Switch's lifecycle there are still so many households which have yet to buy their first Switch, so for now the Lite is mostly about filling the void that the 3DS left.

HigHurtenflurst said:
brute said:

PS2, Wii and Switch didnt have weaker versions, power wise.

What did you mean by "historically" then?

AFAIK this is the first time there has been a console launch with a power split like this, previously when there have been multiple launch SKUs it has been based on available memory & features.

I am pretty sure that brute is mistakingly piggybacking on Jim Ryan's statement that a strategy like Series X/Series S hasn't succeeded in the past, hence why Sony chose a different path. The obvious catch is that such a strategy has not been employed before as you correctly noted, so using the word "historically" is simply wrong (Ryan used that word). I assume Ryan said it the way he did because it carries the implication that Microsoft is doing bad business, going for something that has never succeeded before.

PAOerfulone said:
Ryng said:

No matter how much PS4/XBO are selling right now, they are old gen consoles.

The graph literally say "current gen consoles", so they don't belong there.

A while ago,  the "Current Gen" graph was listed as "Current Platforms." The reason they did that was because of the confusing argument around whether or not the Switch was 8th gen or 9th gen.

The "Last Generation" tab has all the 7th gen consoles. And the "This Generation" tab has the PS4, Xbox One, and SWITCH. And it's been like that ever since the Switch came out in 2017, replacing the Wii U. Even though the Wii U was Nintendo's actual, real 8th generation console. So really, the Wii U, PS4, and Xbox One all should've been removed once the Switch came out, since the Switch is, by traditional definitions, the first 9th generation console. Yet we kept hearing debates about "Is the Switch 8th gen or 9th gen?"

If it's the latter, then in that case the Switch never belonged on that tab alongside the PS4/Xbox One and those two should've been booted to
"Last Generation" with 7th gen being tossed entirely as soon as the Switch came out and the Switch should've been by itself, even though the PS4 and Xbox One were still in the middle of their life cycles with the PS4 in the middle of its peak year.

If it's the former, then the Switch should be booted along with the PS4 and Xbox One now that the PS5 and XSXS are here since the Switch would also be considered old gen.

So which is it?

The archaic and dated conception of generations is exactly that, archaic and dated. 

What's archaic is VGC's website code. The frontpage has to show exactly five consoles, that's why Switch had to replace the Wii U and why the Wii U is nowhere to be seen, that's why the 3DS and Vita have been kept on it despite having no meaningful sales anymore.

This particular VGC staff decision was never about which gen does Switch belong to. It was all about how do they work with the code they've got. But they are finally able to change things, so a new look should be coming soon.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

sales2099 said:
SKMBlake said:

Not comparable

Because it pokes a hole in your point. Sure this is the first generation where one company made 2 specd skus, but the principle is the same. “Weak” consoles have appeal so long as the price and games are there. 

History has shown us that high end specs matter to people like us, but less so to the majority of people that invest in video games. You missed the news where MS said 40% of new Xbox gamers at launch bought a Series S? 

40% is a huge number but this statistic is irrelevant in regards to overall sales. 40% of new Xbox gamers at launch buying Series S != 40% of all new Xbox consoles sold being Series S. Far from it.



 

curl-6 said:
SKMBlake said:

That's what they did. And they then decided to make it also weaker for no reason.

Not for no reason; so that they could have a $300 SKU at launch. No way they could do that while keeping it as powerful as the X.

Whether it pays off is another matter entirely, but they didn't make it "weaker for no reason".

I meant "for no good reason", my bad. Either you sacrifice disc player, or you sacrifice power in order to lower your price, not both.



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Sogreblute said:
SKMBlake said:

Yeah no, I'm not doing the "weaker takes it all" debate.

And yeah, MS clearly overestimate the appeal of the S

I would wait till later to see if they overestimated the Series S. It's the hardcore gamers that jump on next gen fast and want the best option possible. There is way more interest in the Series X than S right now. That could change this year or next when the casuals jump on.

There is almost no appeal to the casuals regarding the Series S:

- can't read old disc-based games

- you can't buy used games

- you can't sell your games once you're done with them

- you'll have to pay full price of any new game which won't be in the gamepass

- you'll have to pay 12 dollars per month to be able to play games if you don't wanna buy them full price, even if your average play time is very low

A pure casual person buys a cheap console and used games (around 4-5 games) and sells it when he/she is done with it. The Series S is the extreme opposite of what a casual would do. It's a huge cash grab



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me