RolStoppable said: rocketpig said: Rol, you're right. I was accidentally including some holiday 2006 sales in my chart so the 360 will probably come in around 8m this year. And I keep hearing the "people who want the games for 360 already own the console" thing even after the huge spike post-price cut and Halo 3 launch. It's quickly becoming a strawman argument. The console seems to be selling itself. Before Halo 3, people were claiming that the Halo fans already owned the console and that Halo wouldn't move many consoles. Then the price cut hit and sales jumped. People said it was because Halo 3 is coming. Then Halo 3 launched and sales soared again. People said it was because of Halo. Now, over a month after the Halo launch, 360 sales are still high. The argument is becoming pretty worn out. News flash: next year when the 360 cuts its price again, more people will buy the console. There are still plenty of people who haven't jumped on board simply because of cost. Halo, Gears, and the other good games don't magically go away after six months. They become part of an established library that will continue to move consoles for the rest of the 360's life span. Also, the argument that because RE5 and GTA won't move consoles because they're multi-plat is ridiculous. The 360 has, and will always have, a price advantage over the PS3. That in itself guarantees many people will opt for Microsoft's console over Sony when they want those games. It's amazing how many people consider the 360 to be the next Dreamcast, even if they don't fully acknowledge what they're arguing. I know that it is a tired argument (people who want the games of the 360 probably already own the console). Let me clarify how I mean it. I don't think that the games in 2008 will move hardware at a higher rate than the games released in 2006 and 2007. Obviously we will see some minor bumps in hardware sales when some major game releases (except for GTA IV, that one will move some more systems), but overall the average weekly sales rate of 2007 should be sustained, but not improved, in 2008, regardless of price cuts. Sustained sales (the 8m for 2008 I am expecting) don't mean that the system will share the fate of the Dreamcast. My reasoning is based on last generation. The Xbox and GC had great games and more coming down the road, they had price cuts and they reached the $150 price point much sooner than the 360 will. But did sales rates improve for these two systems in their 3rd and 4th year on the market? Not really. Most people refused to spend $99 on a GC, despite it having some of the best games last generation. The Xbox didn't fare much better. I don't consider the 360 to be the next Dreamcast, I consider it to be the next Xbox. Although I expect the 360 to end up with higher LTD sales (30m) than the Xbox, because the competition this time is weaker, mainly due the one year headstart of the 360.

Well rol we have to go back to the fact that, those games will always be motivation to buy the 360, i know ALOT of people who are going to get a 360, and i mean ALOT, just waiting for the price to drop, or waiting on a certain game. Now i can easily agree with you, but i think the 360 will fare better then you think, at least possibly. Im basing this on that this generation is alot different from last in terms of sales. We have a console that is currently taking the lead, but is in my mind, not consisting of to many of the ps2 owners, its expanding its userbase. I see the wii of course dominating, but pushing alot more of hardcore gamers onto the ps3 and 360, then the ps2 did, resulting in more sales.

 That and the 360 still has a stellar lineup next year, along with the other two consoles

 

rocketpig said: I didn't prove anything because... Well, because proving a future occurance is impossible. For all I know, Nintendo moved out of Redmond because they are planning a tactical nuclear strike on Microsoft. Anything can happen.  I said 16m because MS hasn't reported the final week of October yet. The last week ended on the 27th, giving them four more days to sell a few consoles. That should add about 100k to their sales overall, putting them around 12.85m. Anyway, I wasn't arguing exact numbers, just approximations. I used 16m because anyone with a brain will agree that the 360 will beat 2006's holiday numbers and 3m is the low estimate for Nov-Dec in 2007. One thing you're missing Sqrl is that if MS starts losing markets to Sony, they have the almighty price cut option behind them, something Sony has pretty much burned to a crisp in 2007. Next year, they're not going to have a lot of options to drop to $300 quickly while MS, if push comes to shove, could burn a little cash by offering $200/250/300 price points, which would drastically change the entire face of the market. In short, I really think the 360 has turned the corner in the NA market and can tread water in the PAL markets, at least enough to make some real headway against the PS3. And that's what it's all about for MS. They can't expect to conquer the world right off the bat and I think they'll be happy with consistent growth through all the markets each generation, something they're slowly doing over time.

 As far as the not proving anything that wasn't focused at you as an attack but rather at Lost who seemed to be taking your argument as gospel.  Not sure why you really felt the need to respond to it unless you thought it was a negative remark but considering the rest of what I said I don't see how you could have taken it that way. If anything my comments about your argument were positive even if not in total agreement.

 As for the extra days, that makes no sense, why would you account for the few extra days when those are going to be rolled over to Nov anyways?  We track week by week as a standard for a reason, and that is to keep it clear when discussing the topic.  Breaking it up and adding more for a few days at the end/beginning only makes it harder to line things up and is bound to cause plenty of confusion in a discussion.  But more than that it isn't really worth the effort as it comes out roughly the same anyways.

On the subject of price cut, I am very aware that MS still has that option, and I think they have played their past price cuts quite well which is why I haven't discounted this fact.  Although I don't think they are going to need to use this tool just yet and at the risk of being blunt I don't see anything in my post that would give you the impression that I thought that they would.  I definitely didn't say it was going to lose market to the PS3, so I'm not sure why you would bring up the fact that they have that option specifically as a responce to PS3 market share increases.

As for your last paragraph I tend to agree that they have turned a corner in NA, but do you really think that their current 130-150k a week number is sustainable?  I certainly don't and I would be beyond shocked if it didn't return to below 70k weekly starting next year.  For now it will likely stay at a fairly high level throughout the holidays as many folks pick up a 360 & Halo 3 for X-mas. 

As for the EU after X-mas, I think the 40k a week they are getting right now will more than likely trail off a bit more before stabilizing between 20-30k, and that is a decent level for MS in EU.  Not great not horrible.   It is going to be an area where they lose ground to the PS3 along with Japan but I do think that the US market for the 360 will make up for that for the forseeable future during most weeks. Which translates to an increasing market share relative to the PS3.

As it stands right now with the week of the 27th/28th wrapped up the 360 needs to sell 3.26m consoles over Nov/Dec to break 16m this year. That isn't the same as last year but rather a 16% increase over last year's 2.825m (approx), thats more than a mentionable difference. Now is it a doable number?  Of course it is, I never ruled it out.  But my current prediction after looking over this new week of info  will probably see the 360 selling about the same as last year +/- 200k which would be in the neighborhood of 15.36m to 15.76m.

My reasoning as I have stated before is that last year the 360 had a largely uncontested market and many people opted for the easier to purchase, better library,  and widely available 360.  This year it has better software to be sure, but it has far more competition both in terms of hardware availability but also in terms of software with games like SMG, R&C, and many others that have been mentioned a dozen times.  Add to that the whisper of hardware troubles that, while yes we here at the forums have moved past, many consumers will likely hear about as the talk shows start doing their gift info specials and you can bet that consoles will be a topic and that the 360's RROD WILL be mentioned.

I think all of that constitutes more than a legit line of reasoning whether you agree with it or not is up to you but to say that I "have no brain" because of my prediction is going a little far and is definitely not the kind of rhetoric I expect from a mod in a debate of ideas based almost entirely in opinion, particularly when it was unprovoked. Its just as easy for my to claim that "Anyone who thinks the 360 will sell more than 8 consoles this holiday is an idiot!".  But as you know a strong proclamation of one's certainty is not a proclamation of fact.

In any case, I will conclude this by saying what I have said in another post recently.  I am not 100% accurate with my predictions and I never made a claim that I was.  If folks want to debate it a bit, I am glad to join in.  But I don't really feel the need to be involved in a debate where the other person is going to set hard fast limits on what I am allowed to say/think/post and then if/when I deviate from their prescribed box of operation be insulted for it.

@RolStoppable

Your adopting the stance that Atari allowed to happen with their console in the early eighties. A more is better philosophy. When in reality the market must be controlled to some extent. First obviously in maintaining a certain level of quality. Second in a effort to keep the industry healthy. Bare with me math is coming.

Let us say a console such as the Wii can sustain three hundred titles a year. Beyond that point the profit margins for developers begin to drop dramatically. This is not unprecedented this happened with Atari in the early eighties. The amount of games exceeded the market of the time. Eventually the market collapsed under the weight.

Now your arguing that the developers will continue to make the same volume of games that appealed to the traditional market before, and they are going to do a little more to appeal to the newer demographics. You saying in your analogy that the market cap must be increased in order to meet the demands of the new demographic. Yes I am ignoring physical limitations I will get to that in the end I promise.

Your saying effectively that originally the developer for the Wii would make ten games during a year. However due to new demographics they will instead make fifteen titles. Ten to serve the traditional demographic, and five to serve the new demographics. However when you look at it like that you have a situation where the market cap is closer to four hundred and fifty games every year.

Needless to say the conclusion is unacceptable. Not only will the traditional market be over saturated too many games for the demand, but the entire market will be over saturated. The only healthy area will be the new demographic, because the titles in that demographic match the demand. The net result however will be a financial disaster. The developers will have increased production fifty percent while losing money for their efforts. A giant money sink where too many games do not recover expenses let alone generate any meaningful profit.

The market is finite as in my analogy not one of exponential expansion as in yours. You cannot just add software development for new demographics instead resources must be shifted. You cannot produce one hundred percent for the traditional demographic and then produce a hundred percent for the new demographics. Instead you must produce a hundred percent combined for all demographics.

Further more there are real world physical limitations developers cannot just arbitrarily increase their staff simply, because the market has diversified. Even if the new demographic comprises twenty percent can we seriously expect all the developers to increase their staff by twenty percent even though the profits have not had a net increase.

Let us assume that the new demographics comprise thirty percent of the Wii user base, and the traditional comprises the other seventy percent. Now which is the preferable conclusion for a software developers. Producing ten games for the console seven traditional, and three games for the new demographics. Producing thirteen games for the console ten for the traditional, and three for the new demographic. Keep in mind the financial outcome is the same either way. Except that for the later the developer has to fund the development of three additional games.

The answer is patently obvious. They are going to make the sound financial decision. Not only to generate more profit, but to protect the continued existence of their company. They will make the ten games they initially intended to, and they will direct three of those games to the emerging demographic.

You mustn't confuse abandonment with representative development. Where as the old market dictated one hundred percent traditional development. The new market demands that only seventy percent of the development is traditional. I am sorry the logic is sound if the new demographics buy games, and they demand games that cater to their desires then developers are going to answer the call. That means that the traditionalists are not going to get the volume of games they are used to.

I am sorry if this upsets Wii owners, but its something your going to have to square yourselves with. You might be a core player, but your console might be popular with other segments of the population. That means room has to be made at the table. You cannot just knock out walls, and lengthen the table. I am sure if you go look at any other console in the past, or even the present. You will see that there is a certain volume of software that the console does not exceed annually despite the rate of sale or sheer volume of consoles in homes.

I suppose I am going to need to dig up the relevant data, but I hope I do not have to the rate of software development is not exponential to hardware sales. Most consoles get to the ceiling relatively fast, and they stay there through their lives. Perhaps I am wrong please prove it to me. Go find the information that says that as hardware sales double so does annual game development.

way to take a jab at me sqr, i never stated it was any gospel at all, its way WAY better predictions then half this crap in here, thats what im stating.

Seriously some of the wii predictions are rediculas

@Lost,

Dude it wasn't a shot. You said "Rocketpig proved" when all he did was make an argument. Your words not mine. Sorry if you don't like the characterization but I didn't make you write that.

edit:Just to clarify the reason I used the term "gospel" is because it is a great example of something people believe in without proof.  I didn't mean it in an insulting bad way, just an overzealous way.

@Dodece,

Uhm, yes the market is finite...but that cap is based on the size of the market and an influx of money into the market from new consumers raises that cap. So this new demographic is bringing in new money and therefor devs can add more staff to meet increased need.

They aren't making 50% more games for the same amount of people they are making 50% more games for 50% more people. That is sustainable and without effecting the "traditional" side of the market.

LOL! 360 Breaking 20 million? Really doubt it. Especially by 2009? As PS3 goes up, Xbox will go down. It wont sell in Japan, or Europe really, so your predicting 9 million next year in NA alone? For what game? Xbox has good games, solid. But it doesnt have anything that really amazes anyone.

 Basically, the second year it sold 7 million WW? What will make it sell 15million next year? The PS3 is going to be in the spotlight all year long, i really doubt it breaks 20 million next year,  and if it ever breaks 25 million lifetime.

Jandre02 said: LOL! 360 Breaking 20 million? Really doubt it. Especially by 2009? As PS3 goes up, Xbox will go down. It wont sell in Japan, or Europe really, so your predicting 9 million next year in NA alone? For what game? Xbox has good games, solid. But it doesnt have anything that really amazes anyone. Basically, the second year it sold 7 million WW? What will make it sell 15million next year? The PS3 is going to be in the spotlight all year long, i really doubt it breaks 20 million next year, and if it ever breaks 25 million lifetime.

^^^^@Rocketpig,

And you were giving me crap!? lol

It moved three million units during the 4th quarter of 2006, which would include October. As for the games you listed, Halo has already done most of the damage that it's going to do, and the rest are either multi-platform, unproven IPs, or target the core gamer and the hardcore gamer.



This is false. The 360 had about 7.75 million sold at the beginning of the year. That means it has sold exactly 5 million so far in 2007, not 7.76 million. It may sell 7.76 million to 8.5 million by January 1st, but it doesn't have that now. If the 360 had 7.76 million sold so far this year, that would put it at 5 million at the beginning of the year. Even if we use your number of 3 million for November and December, that would mean it sold 2 million in the entire world from Nov. 2005 - Oct. 2006, and I don't think I need to explain why that's retarded.

As for next year, let's take a look at that, shall we? Microsoft will not drop the price on the 360 before GTAIV comes out, and it will probably only be by 50 bucks, which means that it will still be above mass market price point. It does not have any exclusive titles next year that have mass appeal as far as the general gaming public is concerned, nor does it have any sequels to proven system-selling franchises. I know that its sales have been spectacular in N. America the past few weeks, but it is still selling dead last in Europe and Japan. The 360 had a price cut this year and one of the most hyped games in history and it will still have sold

Sqrl said:  As far as the not proving anything that wasn't focused at you as an attack but rather at Lost who seemed to be taking your argument as gospel.  Not sure why you really felt the need to respond to it unless you thought it was a negative remark but considering the rest of what I said I don't see how you could have taken it that way. If anything my comments about your argument were positive even if not in total agreement. As for your last paragraph I tend to agree that they have turned a corner in NA, but do you really think that their current 130-150k a week number is sustainable?  I certainly don't and I would be beyond shocked if it didn't return to below 70k weekly starting next year.  For now it will likely stay at a fairly high level throughout the holidays as many folks pick up a 360 & Halo 3 for X-mas.  As it stands right now with the week of the 27th/28th wrapped up the 360 needs to sell 3.26m consoles over Nov/Dec to break 16m this year. That isn't the same as last year but rather a 16% increase over last year's 2.825m (approx), thats more than a mentionable difference. Now is it a doable number?  Of course it is, I never ruled it out.  But my current prediction after looking over this new week of info  will probably see the 360 selling about the same as last year +/- 200k which would be in the neighborhood of 15.36m to 15.76m. I think all of that constitutes more than a legit line of reasoning whether you agree with it or not is up to you but to say that I "have no brain" because of my prediction is going a little far and is definitely not the kind of rhetoric I expect from a mod in a debate of ideas based almost entirely in opinion, particularly when it was unprovoked. Its just as easy for my to claim that "Anyone who thinks the 360 will sell more than 8 consoles this holiday is an idiot!".  But as you know a strong proclamation of one's certainty is not a proclamation of fact. In any case, I will conclude this by saying what I have said in another post recently.  I am not 100% accurate with my predictions and I never made a claim that I was.  If folks want to debate it a bit, I am glad to join in.  But I don't really feel the need to be involved in a debate where the other person is going to set hard fast limits on what I am allowed to say/think/post and then if/when I deviate from their prescribed box of operation be insulted for it.

For the sake of brevity, I cut out parts of the post. No need to get so upset about my comments Sqrl, they were a good-natured poke at your predictions. I respect you as a poster and think you have well-articulated arguments. I didn't mean to insult you and sometimes intent is lost over the Intraweb.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on Nov-Dec sales. I think the 360 will outperform its 2006 numbers simply because of Halo. You know that there are still loads of parents out there who couldn't afford to buy their children a $350 console and $60 game in September; over the holidays, that will change and Halo will continue to push units until 2008.

As for the 360 holding 100k+ weekly next year, I'll agree that it won't happen. But I do believe that we'll see improved sales over 2007. How much improved? I don't really know.

And BTW, you can post whatever you want; I have yet to even reprimand a poster (other than the occassional "stop trolling" post). I'm not the type to tell someone what they can and cannot think, though I will argue with them if I disagree. I think you're confusing me with other admins. :D

Lord N said: It moved three million units during the 4th quarter of 2006, which would include October. As for the games you listed, Halo has already done most of the damage that it's going to do, and the rest are either multi-platform, unproven IPs, or target the core gamer and the hardcore gamer. So far in 2007, the 360 has sold roughly 7.6m consoles. Add in 3m (which will almost surely be higher) and you come in at roughly 10.5-11m sold in 2007. You said that at best, the 360 would be at 23m sold on January 1st, 2008. So, after it has seen at least one more price cut, you expect the console to move about 30% less units than it did in 2007... This is false. The 360 had about 7.75 million sold at the beginning of the year. That means it has sold exactly 5 million so far in 2007, not 7.76 million. It may sell 7.76 million to 8.5 million by January 1st, but it doesn't have that now. If the 360 had 7.76 million sold so far this year, that would put it at 5 million at the beginning of the year. Even if we use your number of 3 million for November and December, that would mean it sold 2 million in the entire world from Nov. 2005 - Oct. 2006, and I don't think I need to explain why that's retarded. As for next year, let's take a look at that, shall we? Microsoft will not drop the price on the 360 before GTAIV comes out, and it will probably only be by 50 bucks, which means that it will still be above mass market price point. It does not have any exclusive titles next year that have mass appeal as far as the general gaming public is concerned, nor does it have any sequels to proven system-selling franchises. I know that its sales have been spectacular in N. America the past few weeks, but it is still selling dead last in Europe and Japan. The 360 had a price cut this year and one of the most hyped games in history and it will still have sold <9 million units in 2007 even if it were to reach 16 million by year's end. That would also mean that it would have to sell 13 million units next year to get to 29 million. So how do you figure that it's going to sell in upwards of 30% more than it will have this year despite the fact that it will still be above mass market price point, will have no games with mass appeal to the general gaming public, sells well in only one region, has no exclusive titles that are proven franchises or are as big as Halo 3, and that there will be cheaper, more appealing alternatives?

Rol already caught my error and I retracted the 10m statement. That still doesn't change that the 360 sold ~2.8m Nov-Dec 2006 and your prediction means it won't even cover that number. Simply put, it doesn't make sense. The 360 is outpacing its sales last year yet inexplicably, you think that it will suddenly grind to a halt starting this week. Halo will continue moving units to people who couldn't afford the console in September, there is absolutely no reason to think that it won't. Sales are still much higher than most people ever thought they would be.

Why do you think MS will only drop the price by $50 around GTA IV time? Sony has sliced $200 off their console in an attempt to remain competitive, yet you believe that a company with infinitely deeper pockets than Sony with a hardware cost/sell advantage will somehow let themselves be steamrolled just when they're making headway into the market. Again, it doesn't make sense.

I fully expect to see the 360 start hitting mass price points sometime Q2 next year ($300 or slightly less for Pro) with a possibility of a $250 Pro by Christmas next year. If Sony is still sitting at $400 for the stripped-down version of the PS3 all of next year (a possibility given their loss per unit), there is no way that the 360 will suddenly be eclipsed by Sony's console.