@ MikeB. Damage control. You are using shipped figures. They mean diddly squat. Sales to consumer are the figures that matter. And since the PS3 launched they have made no headway at all into catching the 360. So why people think they will come second is ludicrous.

MikeB said: kowenicki said: MikeB said: In concrete figures, units sold to retail worldwide (no estimates): 360's Lead (in millions) Sep-05 0.00 Dec-05 1.50 (360's one year or more headstart in North America, Europe and Japan) Mar-06 3.20 Jun-06 5.00 Sep-06 6.00 Dec-06 8.72 (the biggest gap in sales) Mar-07 7.29 (PS3 launch in PAL regions) Jun-07 7.28 Sep-07 7.77 Dec-07 7.17 Mar-08 6.15 Jun-08 5.89 (the lowest recorded gap since the PS3's launch) * For the period June 2008 to September 2008, it seems the gap has become smaller yet again. The PS3 is still set to launch officially in some regions including South America. A graph taking into account entry pricing developments, important exclusives (like Halo 3 and MGS 4) and regions launches would be interesting. Sorry, where are these figures from?  Im using VGChartz data only....    Also quoting selective months doesnt illustrate trends like a line graph can (and even this isnt perfect for trends).   Company financial reports. Units sold to retail.

 

honestly those sold to retail make things look worse, when compared to sold to consumer... which is what matters with consumers buying games and all, with games that dont sell being written down as lose 

@ kowenicki

I said differently at the time, I always said entry pricing is crucial as well as the launch of high profile exclusives and popular sequels like Halo 3, MGS4, Final Fantasy XIII and Gran Turismo 5.

That's why I also thought the Wii would outsell the PS3 the first couple of years. Nearly all big GameCube and XBox sequels are already released for their follow up consoles and they are much cheaper to produce.

If you read back my comments I even stated Sony could never afford to sell the console at Wii and PS2 levels early on, the console was and still is far too cutting edge, selling below actual cost to be sold in such quantities. Software sales need to compensate for hardware technology costs and this can only be well managed financially by increasing the install base gradually.

selnor said: @ MikeB. Damage control. You are using shipped figures. They mean diddly squat. Sales to consumer are the figures that matter. And since the PS3 launched they have made no headway at all into catching the 360. So why people think they will come second is ludicrous.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the more units consumers buy the more units will be bought by retailers.

The 360 around here has been far more in stock since forever, in the end all units sold to retailers (minus failed units) will end up in consumer hands.

When stock levels are low, retailers will buy new units from Sony or Microsoft. But this is a sales website, so you should already know such things.

 

MikeB said: selnor said: @ MikeB. Damage control. You are using shipped figures. They mean diddly squat. Sales to consumer are the figures that matter. And since the PS3 launched they have made no headway at all into catching the 360. So why people think they will come second is ludicrous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the more units consumers buy the more units will be bought by retailers. The 360 around here has been far more in stock since forever, in the end all units sold to retailers (minus failed units) will end up in consumer hands. When stock levels are low, retailers will buy new units from Sony or Microsoft. But this is a sales website, so you should already know such things.

wow alot of talk to say nothing, 

 

on another note i think we can agree both companies have channel stuffed to meet artifical goals, which make shipped to retailer charts all but useless 

 

kowenicki said: MikeB said: @ kowenicki If the PS3 fans are honest at the launch lots of them would have said (or at least thought) that 360 price reductions, library and promotion would count for nothing... and that the PS3 wouls have been wayyyyy ahead of the 360 come then end of '08. (2 yrs in) I said differently at the time, I always said entry pricing is crucial as well as the launch of high profile exclusives and popular sequels like Halo 3, MGS4, Final Fantasy XIII and Gran Turismo 5. That's why I also thought the Wii would outsell the PS3 the first couple of years. Nearly all big GameCube and XBox sequels are already released for for the follow up consoles and their much cheaper to make. If you read back my comments I even stated Sony could never afford to sell the console at Wii and PS2 levels early on, the console was and still is far too cutting edge, selling below actual cost to be sold in such quantities. Software sales need to compensate for hardware technology costs and this can only be well managed financially by increasing the install base gradually. This is where I just shake my head.  Set aside the blu-ray movie capability.  The game playing experience on the PS3 and 360 is almost identical, even when considering the Arcade 360 (which plays ALL the multiplatform games the PS3 can and they look identical).  Its a myth.

I wouldnt go that far, there are a few things holding up the ps3 terrible board arch, a terrible decision to limit ram, and introing a brand new way to program for a chip.. that hurts, the last one can be overcome this gen and very good games will come out, the other two will hopefully be aliveated in latter ps series platforms.... honestly i doubt we will ever see more than half of the cells full potential, mainly due to the chip napping too much while waiting for information to process its a sad state of affairs, but actually not all that uncommon in ppc chip  designs. ram should be a toppriority on all ppc chips, with how they implment instructionsets, they usaly work on more things at one time than other chipsets which requires more ram. 

for a cell chip to truelly shine 4 or more gig will be needed, im suprised we havent seen a home modder do this yet. it woulld be one hell of a computer.

 

@ kowenicki

Look I am someone who looks ahead. That's why years before the PS3 launched I predicted it would take quite a while for developers to really tap the PS3's architecture while talking about the hardware.

Just look at high profile PS3 exclusives like Resistance 2 and Killzone 2, compare them with the upcoming Gears of War 2. Then remember the PS3 still has a lot of headroom to go much further while the 360 hasn't.

Multi-platform games can run on 360 and PS3, that's the entire point of doing a multi-platform game..... The aim is always to create a similar experience. You won't see a PS3 version with hundreds of enemies on screen and a 360 with only 10, that would make the two versions two totally different games. Always judge the exclusives to judge a platform, be that PS3 vs 360 or Atari ST vs Amiga (The Atari ST had a head start advantage, being easier to develop for, early ST games were better than the Amiga ports, later Amiga games totally outdid anything the ST could do).

I hope this provides some insight. And remember my comments originate from years before the PS3 launched.

MikeB said: selnor said: @ MikeB. Damage control. You are using shipped figures. They mean diddly squat. Sales to consumer are the figures that matter. And since the PS3 launched they have made no headway at all into catching the 360. So why people think they will come second is ludicrous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the more units consumers buy the more units will be bought by retailers. The 360 around here has been far more in stock since forever, in the end all units sold to retailers (minus failed units) will end up in consumer hands. When stock levels are low, retailers will buy new units from Sony or Microsoft. But this is a sales website, so you should already know such things.

As usual you seem to have missed the whole point that PS3 has made no ground.

Going to your point in a previous post, you state that the PS3 is still to cutting edge. If I remeber correctly back at E3 2008 Sony themselves stated that MGS4 used 80% of the PS3 potential. It's safe to say that KZ2 will be near enough to 100% of the PS3 potential. And that my friend is not leaps and bounds ahead of every other game. Fanboys like to tout it, and yes it looks awesome. But not an extra £190 awesome here in the UK. I couldnt care less what people think they know about the PS3 structure, but at the end of the gen people will realise there was nothing in it between the 2 HD consoles. Personally FC2 is the best looking console game. And Fable 2 is using the most CPU power of any game. Now if you know what work the CPU does, look at all the engines that are in Fable 2, coupled together with great graphics and you will see what I mean.

 

@ kowenicki

That argument can be valid for one quarter report, but if the sales trend continues for follow up quarters it doesn't make sense. The claim becomes invalid, lots of units left in stock means retailers will buy fewer units for the follow up periods.

kowenicki said: MikeB said: @ kowenicki Or perhaps retailers anticipate demand and sometimes they overestimate that demand. That argument can be valid for one quarter report, but if the sales trend continues for follow up quarters it doesn't make sense. The claim becomes invalid, lots of units left in stock means retailers will buy fewer units for the follow up periods.   Mike... are my graphs accurate and correct or not???  If not then you may aswell leave this site because the data used forms the basis of every discussion and debate that takes place here surrounding sales. So are they accurate.. yes or no will do.

arguing with mike is like talking to a wall =P