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

Forums - Sony - PS2 is repeating itself with PS3, domination begins in 2010

numonex on 29 November 2009

PS3 is no PS2. PS3 sales performance this generation is the kick in the rear end that Sony needed to wake up and change its ways.

Aligning sales after three years on the market PS2 had sold around 45 million systems. 15 million per year. PS3 only sold around 27 million systems. 9 million per year.



Around the Network
forest-spirit on 29 November 2009

If you really love your console writing articles like this one does nothing but bring more hate against it. I feel sad for the true PS3 fans.



Crystalchild on 29 November 2009
forest-spirit said:
If you really love your console writing articles like this one does nothing but bring more hate against it. I feel sad for the true PS3 fans.

 

^ /signed

 

 



I'm a Foreigner, and as such, i am grateful for everyone pointing out any mistakes in my english posted above - only this way i'll be able to improve. thank you!

hsrob on 29 November 2009
Kantor said:
hsrob said:
Reasonable said:
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, I'd say the PS3 is selling exactly unlike the PS2.

Now if PS3 was roaring away like the Wii at this point, then I'd see the link.

Almost, but not quite:)

Though the PS2's current sales, nine years on, are like a man saying "And another thing..." twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument.

Makes you wonder if we could have an entire discussion on the state of the videogame industry just using Douglas Adams' quotes.



jneul on 29 November 2009

shut up haters ps3 just outsold the xbox in america (black friday sales), hate all you want, it's not going to slow sony down now



it's the future of handheld

PS VITA = LIFE

The official Vita thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=130023&page=1

Around the Network
leo-j on 29 November 2009
numonex said:
PS3 is no PS2. PS3 sales performance this generation is the kick in the rear end that Sony needed to wake up and change its ways.

Aligning sales after three years on the market PS2 had sold around 45 million systems. 15 million per year. PS3 only sold around 27 million systems. 9 million per year.

Good thing the ps3 is well on its way on outselling the PS one if we align those launches



 

mM
Kasz216 on 29 November 2009
NJ5 said:
Just like the PS2 before it, the PS3 was criticized for not having enough games to survive


Did that really happen with the PS2?

The "Shortages" argument is just laughable.

The PS2 according to many was doomed because it carried a DVD drive that at the time was unknown


Err... no it wasn't.

$299 was the launch price of Sony's PS2 and a good portion of the media was crying about it, saying PS2 was just too expensive


Again... did this really happen?

There's only one more piece that's missing to complete the puzzle, and it's to see the PS3 dominate like its predecessor.


Good luck with that one.

No... none of that actually happened.

 

1) There were PS2 "Shortages" but mostly Japan.  That's why it took so long to launch in the US and EU.   There were US and EU shortages too... but they were more like the Wii's shortages then the PS3s... well lack of demand.

2) DVD was already well established when the PS2 came out.  Pretty sure it was actually bigger propotionally then Blu-ray is NOW.

3) No... it didn't happen.



Xoj on 29 November 2009
d21lewis said:
Xoj said:
d21lewis said:
Xoj said:
restored_lost said:
yea i mean i see the comparisons but all that really proves is that sony would have failed with the ps2 if xbox were a little more seasoned and gamecube i dont know what happened there, basically sony did really well and inovated with the ps1 at an affordable price but bulnered the ps2 and ps3 with there overpriced launches, but hey i mean cant blame them for trying to push the industry, every gen their consoles have some new format to push, id lol if ps4 was all digital download.

i actually happy they did what they did for the ps3.

i don't want that happen what happen with PC Gaming, where intel thinks 4500HD is good enough, and PC gamers are lazy bunch t hat can only code with engines. (not coding at all).

while they pushed harder, though the price raised, ps3 also have more quality than all the consoles in the market. and in the end the price went down. and would have gone done faster it wasn't for sony.

360 would still be 399$ wiii 250$

debatable.

Are the Wii and 360 priced less because of Sony or is the PS3 $299 (half priced) after 3 years because of Microsoft and Nintendo.............

pink - ps3 it's made of higher quality more expensive chips. for the cell, Blu ray drive, HDD, XDR ram and having a overall failure rate, almost as low as the wii. actually main problem of the wii and ps3 are only lens.

yellow - both microsoft and nintendo pushed their pricecuts after PS3 sales spike.

and the ps3 still is 100$ more expensive than the main competitors.

360 cut their price twice in 2008! since ps3 hit 400$ they couldn't get ahold of anything in europe and others.

when u are the most expensive consoles it's given u are bound to have more price cuts, since the space for those are bigger, and sony being the one pushing.

u may say because there wasn't demand for it, but recent price cut make me believe there always was a demand, just it was too expensive (for a good reason).

As for the "PS3 also have more quality than all the consoles in the market" comment:  How the hell was I supposed to know you meant the material the console was made of?  I thought you meant software library or failure rate!!

And the statement that Microsoft and Nintendo dropped their prices because Sony reached the $299 price point:  That's why I responded with a rhetorical question.  That's true, but c'mon.  The PS3 is at a $299 price point because the competition was so much cheaper!  The PS1 and PS2 were redesigned near the end of their console generations.  Look how early we get a PS3 Slim.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?

because quality its about how materials, generally more expensive means more quality, just if they maintain a low failure rate.

about the price, the thing is, sony never price cut after someone , as for they are driving force, like i said the ps3 was too expensive to begin with, but the console was suppose to drop in price over time. even the ps2 was higher selling console got price cut to 200$ even if it didn't need to.

 



saicho on 30 November 2009
Xoj said:
d21lewis said:
Xoj said:
d21lewis said:
Xoj said:
restored_lost said:
yea i mean i see the comparisons but all that really proves is that sony would have failed with the ps2 if xbox were a little more seasoned and gamecube i dont know what happened there, basically sony did really well and inovated with the ps1 at an affordable price but bulnered the ps2 and ps3 with there overpriced launches, but hey i mean cant blame them for trying to push the industry, every gen their consoles have some new format to push, id lol if ps4 was all digital download.

i actually happy they did what they did for the ps3.

i don't want that happen what happen with PC Gaming, where intel thinks 4500HD is good enough, and PC gamers are lazy bunch t hat can only code with engines. (not coding at all).

while they pushed harder, though the price raised, ps3 also have more quality than all the consoles in the market. and in the end the price went down. and would have gone done faster it wasn't for sony.

360 would still be 399$ wiii 250$

debatable.

Are the Wii and 360 priced less because of Sony or is the PS3 $299 (half priced) after 3 years because of Microsoft and Nintendo.............

pink - ps3 it's made of higher quality more expensive chips. for the cell, Blu ray drive, HDD, XDR ram and having a overall failure rate, almost as low as the wii. actually main problem of the wii and ps3 are only lens.

yellow - both microsoft and nintendo pushed their pricecuts after PS3 sales spike.

and the ps3 still is 100$ more expensive than the main competitors.

360 cut their price twice in 2008! since ps3 hit 400$ they couldn't get ahold of anything in europe and others.

when u are the most expensive consoles it's given u are bound to have more price cuts, since the space for those are bigger, and sony being the one pushing.

u may say because there wasn't demand for it, but recent price cut make me believe there always was a demand, just it was too expensive (for a good reason).

As for the "PS3 also have more quality than all the consoles in the market" comment:  How the hell was I supposed to know you meant the material the console was made of?  I thought you meant software library or failure rate!!

And the statement that Microsoft and Nintendo dropped their prices because Sony reached the $299 price point:  That's why I responded with a rhetorical question.  That's true, but c'mon.  The PS3 is at a $299 price point because the competition was so much cheaper!  The PS1 and PS2 were redesigned near the end of their console generations.  Look how early we get a PS3 Slim.  Which came first?  The chicken or the egg?

because quality its about how materials, generally more expensive means more quality, just if they maintain a low failure rate.

about the price, the thing is, sony never price cut after someone , as for they are driving force, like i said the ps3 was too expensive to begin with, but the console was suppose to drop in price over time. even the ps2 was higher selling console got price cut to 200$ even if it didn't need to.

 

Sony had to do pricecut for PS3 in order to make it competitive. That's a response to market reception.

Also, are you implying that Wii's first pricecut in almost 3 years is a response to PS3's pricecut but not because the console price is suppose to drop over time?



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

ph4nt on 30 November 2009
leo-j said:
numonex said:
PS3 is no PS2. PS3 sales performance this generation is the kick in the rear end that Sony needed to wake up and change its ways.

Aligning sales after three years on the market PS2 had sold around 45 million systems. 15 million per year. PS3 only sold around 27 million systems. 9 million per year.

Good thing the ps3 is well on its way on outselling the PS one if we align those launches

Not a chance, the PS1 had a staggered launch and it's first year was Japan only, giving a faulty from launch comparison showing the PS3 tracking ahead

fiscal year sales for PS1:

 

1 0.9 (Japan only 1 month)

2 3.4 (included American and European launches very similar to PS3)

3 9.2 (1st full year of PS1)

4 19.3 (2nd full year of PS1 nearly double PS3s second year)

5 21.6 (over 8 million above Sony's PS3 forecast)

 

for PS3:

 

1 3.6

2 9.2

3 10.0

4 (forecast) 13 million

The difference is really starting to pick up.