Mummelmann said: Starcraft; are you seriously suggesting that only the PS2 buyers are buying Wii's and 360's? How about those who owned a N64, a Gamecube or an X-box? Have they quit gaming alltogether or are they still using a console that abrubtly and completely lost support over night? Every console sold is a loss for Sony, even PS3's. Sony cannot under any circumstance gain or win anything according to your reasoning, only loose. You were a lot more reflected and clever before, this OP is just a very long piece of nonsense and only serves to prove that your feet are getting seriously warm underneath you on behalf of your console (which frankly is doing less than a stellar job at keeping the lead it gained over the year or so it "reigned supreme"). In its third year it is moving slower than the main competitor does in its second year without any of its most highly anticipated platform exclusives and a way higher pricetag. Even in its strongest markets (UK and NA) the 360 is loosing ground. Compared to last gen I won't go so far as to say that the 360 is neither dead nor in trouble (it is beyond doubt that it'll perform better than the original box), but with your expectations it well and truly is. And lol @slimebeast, I think you and starcraft are siblings, especially the first point cracks me up. The number of Playstations have gone from 210 to 230-240 million (220 to 250-260 million with the PSP) and Nintendo have not helped MS, they have buttsecksed them by surprise and utterly at that.

I think (know) you have completely missed what I am saying.  But you got one thing right.  Without keeping the vast majority of it's PS2 userbase and moving them to the PS3, Sony IS losing consumers and losing revenue.  I have stated in this thread on numerous occassions that in unit to unit sales, the PS3 will eventually beat the Xbox 360.

However, for the most part when a PS2 customer decides to buy and Xbox 360, they do so to the detriment of the PS3.  We have already heard that only 5% of consumers own more than one console per generation.  Please do not deliberately misinterpret what I am saying.  

It is very simple.  When a PS2 owner buys an Xbox 360, Microsoft gains future revenue (game royalties) and Sony loses future revenue that they would have gotten if the consumer held onto the PS2 as a primary platform or bought a PS3. 

dabaus513 said: starcraft said: wartaal said: once the ps3 will cost 250 dollar/euro its lights out for the 360. getting outsold by a console that costs 150$ more is not very impressive to say the least. anyway keep wasting ur time by spinning as much as you want, it wont make a difference anyway. It is conceivable that by the time the PS3 is $250, the Xbox 3 and Wii 2 will be out......... Somehow I don't think that will be a great time for the PS3.   You are 100% correct starcraft, remember holiday 2005 when the 360 launched and no one after that bought a ps2? Good times.

I remember it well.  Would the PS2 be that console that had already sold 90million+ units and had the majority of third party software support?

And now, would the PS3 be the console that doesn't have a chance of coming CLOSE to those unit sales and is getting less TP support than the Wii and similar support to the Xbox 360? 

 

Rock_on_2008 said: Starcraft your weak arguments make no sense at all. PS3 sold 90k more hardware for the week. A higher GTA Iv attachment rate on the PS3 (28%) than the 360 (19%). How did Sony fail? I say Sony won the week by 90k. End of story. Starcraft for once in your life, please admit that the 360 lost and you were wrong. PS3 was victorious.

Ahhh, but this thread isn't about 360 vs PS3 is it now (though I think I'd have plenty of safe ground to stand on if it was *cough* massive lead *cough*).

This thread is about Sony Computer Entertainment vs Microsoft Game Division.  Over the course of last week, SCE lost consumers and MGD gained them.  Period.

 

"But 100,000 people left Sony for Microsoft this week, and as many as 300,000 left Sony for Nintendo."

 

 FAILED!   for more than one reason.

 

1) The original Xbox sold around 25 million units. Until the 360 passes that mark, it's safe to assume that the vast majority of 360 sales are REPEAT customers.

2) The Wii has outsold the Gamecube so maybe some of them are PS2 owners. However, it's well known that the Wii has hit a new demographic. Older people, families, and in general, people who are NOT gamers are buying the Wii for the casual family fun party appeal that it has. A huge portion of the Wii sales were from people who didn't even own a console last gen. 

 

VGchartz STILL shows that the PS3 sales are matched day and date with PS2 sales. Until that changes, the Playstation userbase HAS NOT DIMINISHED. 

starcraft said: This thread is about Sony Computer Entertainment vs Microsoft Game Division. Over the course of last week, SCE lost consumers and MGD gained them. Period.

that's the worst spin i have ever heard. and i do mean ever.

Only 5% of people buy more than one console? source?

I would guess 25% of people buy more than one console.

Final-Fan said: He's saying that the PlayStation brand is stronger than the Xbox brand, but if you look ONLY at the PS3 vs. 360 (excluding both the PS2 and PSP) then they are about equal in street cred. I admit it's kind of unfair to compare the 360 to the whole PlayStation family SDF-style, but I have to say that the PSP is in fact this gen and a good asset for Sony's brand strength, which also helps the PS3; and the PS2 still casts a huge shadow. It may be unfair to MS but ignoring all that just because MS will look bad* if you don't ignore it is just foolish. *Or more accurately, because Slimebeast's argument will be destroyed if he doesn't. Other than that, a good post exposing some interesting fallacies, self-contradiction, etc.

He really only brought up the PS3 = PS brand after his legs were cut and realized that the PSbrand is far more popular than the Xbox brand. Other than that, the whole "street cred" argument shouldn't be based on the newest console out vs the other newest console out, it should be based on the timeframe and what consoles or systems are still selling in that timeframe. It just happens to be that the PSP, PS2 and PS3 are selling right now, and the brand name happens to play a large part of it. Either way his arguments are mostly based on baseless assumptions and selective fanboy memories, disregard it.

starcraft said: Final-Fan said: starcraft said: Final-Fan said: 2.  I guess I did incorrectly argue "PS3 vs. 360" instead of "360?"; however, (A) I think that your OP had serious overtones of that itself from which I took my cue; and (B) I don't think you've adequately made your case that the 360 is going to avoid entering a period of decline by tapping the current PS2 userbase.  The 360 is not the PS2 and price cuts didn't help the Gamecube or Xbox as much as I think you expect them to help the 360. [...] 4.  "Redact ... to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release" When I say that he did not "redact" any part of his OP, that means that he did not remove any incriminating material talking about (for instance) SW sales.  AFAIK the original portion of the OP is unaltered; his notes above it are merely a (large) annotation.  If you look carefully at that OP, even without the big flashy warnings it's clear that, although he uses GTA (SW) as a milestone, the subject of his question is HW.  The numbers he cites are HW.  The numbers he talks about are HW.  Why would it now follow that the numbers he is asking a question about would not be HW? I said "if you look carefully", and it's painfully clear that very few took the time to do so with DMeisterJ's question on a very touchy subject -- exactly the kind of situation that calls for careful reading.  Next time check your dictionary if you don't know the definition of a word. Finally, as for the post you quoted, is he now not allowed to respond to other people who talk about SW?  In fact, his initial response to the post in question talked about HW instead of SW, suggesting that DMeisterJ was concentrating his attention on HW discussion to the point that he didn't even notice that someone else had brought SW into it! DMeisterJ's OP talked about HW.  Not SW.  SW got dragged into the fray by other people and DMeisterJ simply failed to jump on them like a rabid badger to keep the thread on topic ... until it became obvious that there were many people misinterpreting the OP, at which point he clarified, and re-clarified, and bolded and underlined etc.  Shame on him? 2.  I don't need to show that the Xbox 360 won't enter a decline because it will tap the PS2 userbase.  All I need to show to prove my point is that it can do it beyond the present, and it is.  It's sales are up year over year.  Unless your suggesting that will change next week? 4.  Of course he is allowed to respond to people that talk about software, am I not allowed to respond to his response?  I didn't say that all of his statements were established in the OP of his thread did I? Read the third line of my OP: "But it culminated in DMeisterJ's thread" 2.  I'm not sure what you mean by "beyond the present".  Are you suggesting that DMeisterJ was insinuating something along the lines of "OMG 360 sales will die now that GTAIV is out!!! lol"?  Because I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant by "beginning of the end".  That would be "the end". 4.  Yes, but the POINT is that his post, which you quoted, was not (as you allege) an elaboration of the line of questioning of the OP, but rather a comment on the SW argument someone had made in the thread.  By jumping on that you deny him the right to pursue parallel lines of discussion apart from the OP subject.  He may have made SW arguments in other threads but this thread was explicitly limited to HW sales, despite the provocative title. You can make any allegations you like about this being the apex of "360 fad will die soon" sentiment, but if you are now trying to refer to posts and discussions occurring in other threads then perhaps you ought to quote them instead. Going back to the "failure of logic" premise of my first post, what I mean is that this:  "Many people often fail to realize that whenever a PS2 owner buys an Xbox 360, Sony normally loses a customer and future revenue, whilst Microsoft gains a customer and future revenue." makes no sense with respect to either the PS3 or the 360.  It makes perfect sense discussing the PS2 vs. PS3 situation, of which I think we are all well aware, but that has nothing to do with the current gen.  That is the mental association I made with the common "sunk costs" mistake.  (It is also valid when discussing the financial or overall fortunes of Sony, which is well outside the scope of these discussions.)  Half your OP revolves around this irrelevancy. (Bolded points in order) 1. By "Beyond the present" I meant that my point is proven as long as the Xbox 360 continues to sell to PS2 owners (in decent quantities of course) for a substantial period of time from this point onwards. I think that the insinuation in the original thread was clearly meant to imply that the Xbox 360 (though not "dead") would become something of an irrelevance henceforth, and that it would begin a general decline from now on. I think with continued year-over-year increases, more exclusives, more multiplatforms that were exclusive on the PS2 and another price drop, the Xbox 360 will demonstrate that it is not in a recession and it IS taking PS2 userbase and therefore IS taking Sony customers. 2. I don't think I've denied anyone anything. There are people in this thread discussing HW, SW, profits etc, and I haven't attacked any of them for it. If you meant the other thread, you should be aware that it was locked BEFORE I began this thread, so it wouldn't be within my capacity to futher deny anyone a right of response in that thread either. 3. This thread has, from the beginning, been about both a Microsoft vs Sony comparison AND an Xbox 360 vs the PS3 comparision. However, the latter came about more because it has become impossible to discuss the competitive capabilities of one console without discussing those of the other. Below is the third paragraph of my OP which was meant to sum up my position: I want to examine GTAIV for a moment, because an understanding of what this game represents is critical to understanding the fact that this week just gone, Sony lost more consumers than it has in any other week since the generation began. Thats right, Sony LOST CONSUMERS! For weeks now, Sony fans have been highlighting the close association GTA has with the Playstation brand, and inadvertedely showing us that this week gone was never Microsoft's to win, it was always Sony's to lose. But Microsoft DID win, and Sony DID lose. Read on.

1.  Well, it can sell more year-over-year and still be in decline if the amount the YOY is up by goes steadily down.  I frankly don't know if this will prove to be the case and don't want to speculate at this time.

PS2 owners are LAST GEN.  Sure, some people still buy it, but those are not the same audience you speak of, I think.  The only thing MS is stealing from Sony is SW sales from the PS2 owners playing their 360s instead of continuing to play their PS2s.  This obsession with PS2 owners buying 360s is becoming tiresome.  Sony's console is not the juggernaut of this gen:  we all know it.  Therefore the userbase of the dominant PS2 has bled in all directions, including to MS.  But that does NOT speak directly to DMeisterJ's thread.  It's clear that the 360's trajectory is well above the Xbox's, so clearly it HAD to get that increase largely from the PS2.  (Anyone who says "but teh gaemkyoob" is getting slapped.)  But the question is how high that trajectory will go -- and whether it is now at or near its apex.  Your continual blathering about PS2-userbase-stealing does not speak to this subject at all, at least not with any specificity.

You know what?  I just thought of something:  maybe you've spent so long arguing against Sony fanboys saying that all those PS2 owners were just waiting in the wings, chastely awaiting [INSERT GAME HERE] and coyly avoiding the overtures of the 360 -- you've spent so long being bombarded with "ZOMG they will come eventually!" -- that you've internalized it and see the fact that the 360 is getting some of those fabled masses as a huge victory that means the 360 can't possibly be heading for a downturn.  One does not necessarily follow the other.

2.  I find your utter failure to comprehend this point very frustrating.  He was not elaborating on the line of the questioning in the OP.  He was, in fact, commenting on a TANGENT brought up by someone making an argument about software.  By speaking in your OP as if that comment was relevant to his OP, you twist his words.  I said you "deny" him the right to talk about things not related directly to the OP e.g. SW because you insisted on acting as if everything he said in the thread was necessarily related directly to the OP.  The only way he could have avoided this misrepresentation would be not to post those other thoughts at all.  Do you understand what I am getting at now?  Do you wish to recant that portion of the OP or would you like to defend your reasoning for including that?

(So if you thought I meany that you were actually exercizing power in some way to stop him from voiving his opinion, I'm sorry for giving that impression.  Hopefully you understand what I have been saying now.)

3.  Are you now saying that the main argument in the OP was simply that much of the PS2's userbase is going to consoles other than the PS3, and that a substantial amount of that is going to the 360?  I think you would be hard-pressed to dredge up more than one or two members here that would disagree with that statement.  I think you would even have a hard time finding people to argue that GTAIV does not highlight those facts.

As for your stated topic of this thread, I can see that somewhat in the OP.  But in that case, why did you choose to put your argument in the framework of a response to a post that was not only specifically about the 360 but limiting itself to HW sales as well?  Surely you understand how people would naturally think that your goal was to discuss the 360, or 360/PS3, instead of Sony and MS generally.

Judging from your exchanges with other posters, I think this is relevant enough to merit reposting outside of our main exchange:

maybe you've spent so long arguing against Sony fanboys saying that all those PS2 owners were just waiting in the wings, chastely awaiting [INSERT GAME HERE] and coyly avoiding the overtures of the 360 -- you've spent so long being bombarded with "ZOMG they will come eventually!" -- that you've internalized it and see the fact that the 360 is getting some of those fabled masses as a huge victory that means the 360 can't possibly be heading for a downturn. One does not necessarily follow the other.