PS3 sold 56 milions already - 360s year head start nullified finally?

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="insomnia37"] Sure, that 1.1 million sales gap sure seals the deal for the 360. loltormentos

It's 2.1. People really need to stop trusting random thread titles so easily.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Why 2.1.? The PS3 has 56 million and MS announced just a week and half ago 57.6 million. So basically the advantage is 1.6 going by official numbers.tormentos

No, the PS3 has 55.5 million announced.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="insomnia37"] Sure, that 1.1 million sales gap sure seals the deal for the 360. loltormentos

It's 2.1. People really need to stop trusting random thread titles so easily.

sony has 55.5 million. not 56

[QUOTE="Allthishate"] Half a million units is a big deal if it was 1k-2k units the ya fine not a big deal . plz Use facts and not random @%@^ to bash the 360 at least. tormentos

Every generation starts with a Zero. ps2 (from 2005)has sold as much as ps3 and 360 has this gen. does that mean sony has lost marketshare? This is not to bash you. But the ps2 is still selling very very well. Sony as far as cponsoles go still have the most marketshare since ps2 and ps3 still sell. But Fanboys will always over look that.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Allthishate"] Half a million units is a big deal if it was 1k-2k units the ya fine not a big deal . plz Use facts and not random @%@^ to bash the 360 at least. Blaze-Agent

Every generation starts with a Zero. ps2 (from 2005)has sold as much as ps3 and 360 has this gen. does that mean sony has lost marketshare? This is not to bash you. But the ps2 is still selling very very well. Sony as far as cponsoles go still have the most marketshare since ps2 and ps3 still sell. But Fanboys will always over look that.

Not exactly overlooking...

If they note PS2 as being strictly in competition with last generation hardware, it makes its domination of that generation even more impressive.

If they acknowledge it is as a current generation console because its still supported than it makes Sony look better this generation. Either way, Sony is still getting credit for its phenomenal success.

The overlap of best selling hardware from a previous generation outselling the new stuff is the norm, not the exception. The GBA outsold the DS and PSP initially, and the Super Nintendo outsold the PS1 and SAT initially.

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Did you read my last post where i say i have no read the link Walter post.? lol Half a million units is nothing the PS3 has out sold the 360 by close to 1 million already in this 10 last months,last generation was won by more than 125 million units,half a million units is nothing.Seiki_sands

Every generation starts with a Zero. ps2 (from 2005)has sold as much as ps3 and 360 has this gen. does that mean sony has lost marketshare? This is not to bash you. But the ps2 is still selling very very well. Sony as far as cponsoles go still have the most marketshare since ps2 and ps3 still sell. But Fanboys will always over look that.

Not exactly overlooking...

If they note PS2 as being strictly in competition with last generation hardware, it makes its domination of that generation even more impressive.

If they acknowledge it is as a current generation console because its still supported than it makes Sony look better this generation. Either way, Sony is still getting credit for its phenomenal success.

The overlap of best selling hardware from a previous generation outselling the new stuff is the norm, not the exception. The GBA outsold the DS and PSP initially, and the Super Nintendo outsold the PS1 and SAT initially.

but not so far into the new generation

Head start doesn't count for much when the Xbox 360 doesn't sell in Japan.

Everyone knows the Japanese rarely buy foreign products. Microsoft have tried to crack Japan but haven't really got anywhere.

Consequently Sony was always going to catch up provided they came close to matching 360 sales in NA and EU.

CwlHeddwyn

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Allthishate"] Half a million units is a big deal if it was 1k-2k units the ya fine not a big deal . plz Use facts and not random @%@^ to bash the 360 at least. Blaze-Agent

Every generation starts with a Zero. ps2 (from 2005)has sold as much as ps3 and 360 has this gen. does that mean sony has lost marketshare? This is not to bash you. But the ps2 is still selling very very well. Sony as far as cponsoles go still have the most marketshare since ps2 and ps3 still sell. But Fanboys will always over look that.

This late in the game it doesn't even matter. The truth is the PS3 will probably be considered a failure by Sony unless they used it to get out Blu-ray players. And Microsoft basically took half of the PS2 fans. Microsoft came in second place this gen. Right after Nintendo.

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Did you read my last post where i say i have no read the link Walter post.? lol Half a million units is nothing the PS3 has out sold the 360 by close to 1 million already in this 10 last months,last generation was won by more than 125 million units,half a million units is nothing.blackace

Every generation starts with a Zero. ps2 (from 2005)has sold as much as ps3 and 360 has this gen. does that mean sony has lost marketshare? This is not to bash you. But the ps2 is still selling very very well. Sony as far as cponsoles go still have the most marketshare since ps2 and ps3 still sell. But Fanboys will always over look that.

you just shot yourself in the foot. why bring marketshare from last generation of consoles into the latest one? At the begginning of every generation. Everyone starts at Zero. Thanks for making my point clearer indirectly. i repear, everyone starts at zero. Thanks though for helping me.:)

You set yourself up.

[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"]

Head start doesn't count for much when the Xbox 360 doesn't sell in Japan.

Everyone knows the Japanese rarely buy foreign products. Microsoft have tried to crack Japan but haven't really got anywhere.

Consequently Sony was always going to catch up provided they came close to matching 360 sales in NA and EU.

blackace

you seem really hurt by the fact that microsoft is losing ground. get used to it man. Soak up the tears. Its not that big of a deal.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Allthishate"] Half a million units is a big deal if it was 1k-2k units the ya fine not a big deal . plz Use facts and not random @%@^ to bash the 360 at least. todd2r

Either way, even if the PS3 crawls out of last place anyone would rightly say then, what they should say now...

"The PS3 and 360 sold similar numbers in generation 7, with the PS3 having strength in Japan, the 360 having strength in America, and with MS seeing large market share increases in all territories, but still not coming to parity with Sony in Europe."

The appropriateness of that statement won't change the day the PS3 takes over 2nd place and it won't ever change. I suspect the PS3 will take over since Sony has more strength in the smaller trailing markets in Asia and elsewhere than MS, so presumably it will see sales trickle in for years, but of course if the day doesn't come before the next generation hits no one will care around here.

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

Every generation starts with a Zero. ps2 (from 2005)has sold as much as ps3 and 360 has this gen. does that mean sony has lost marketshare? This is not to bash you. But the ps2 is still selling very very well. Sony as far as cponsoles go still have the most marketshare since ps2 and ps3 still sell. But Fanboys will always over look that.

Blaze-Agent

you just shot yourself in the foot. why bring marketshare from last generation of consoles into the latest one? At the begginning of every generation. Everyone starts at Zero. Thanks for making my point clearer indirectly. i repear, everyone starts at zero. Thanks though for helping me.:)

You set yourself up.

How else do you gauge market share in an industry that resets each time new hardware is released?

PSD has to be used to gauge the performance of the "current" market trends and the success/or failure of the product assortment.

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

[QUOTE="blackace"] When we talk about market shares, we talk about current generation and not last generation. It's irrelevant how well the PS2 is selling now. If we cares about previous generation then you would have to bring the NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, Genesis, Saturn, Dreamcast, etc into it. They aren't part of this generation, so no one cares. Sony has lost a substantial amount of market shares to Nintendo and Microsoft this generation. The PS3 and PSP are both dead last against their competition. At the rate they are going, they have no chance of finishing 1st. masiisam

you just shot yourself in the foot. why bring marketshare from last generation of consoles into the latest one? At the begginning of every generation. Everyone starts at Zero. Thanks for making my point clearer indirectly. i repear, everyone starts at zero. Thanks though for helping me.:)

You set yourself up.

How else do you gauge market share in an industry that resets each time new hardware is released?

PSD has to be used to gauge the performance of the "current" market trends and the success/or failure of the product assortment.

and by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? Marketshare does not carry over from generation to generation. Its just pointless. you ask how you gauge marketshare? you gauge it by whats you see right now. Ps2 domination and that marketshare left with that era of consoles. ps3, 360 and Wii all started from 0. thats the only way it could ever make sense. (i think the whole marketshare thing is a convulted mess that makes no sense).

Poor Sony, going from the highest selling console of all time to last place. Takes a lot of creativity and imagination to try and spin that into a positive light. Bravo sir, bravo. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

you just shot yourself in the foot. why bring marketshare from last generation of consoles into the latest one? At the begginning of every generation. Everyone starts at Zero. Thanks for making my point clearer indirectly. i repear, everyone starts at zero. Thanks though for helping me.:)

You set yourself up.

Blaze-Agent

How else do you gauge market share in an industry that resets each time new hardware is released?

PSD has to be used to gauge the performance of the "current" market trends and the success/or failure of the product assortment.

and by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? Marketshare does not carry over from generation to generation. Its just pointless. you ask how you gauge marketshare? you gauge it by whats you see right now. Ps2 domination and that marketshare left with that era of consoles. ps3, 360 and Wii all started from 0. thats the only way it could ever make sense. (i think the whole marketshare thing is a convulted mess that makes no sense).

I understand where you're coming from but it's far cry to say it's pointless..Maybe here in SW..but outside these walls of fanboys and meaningless conversations marketshare has just as much importance, if not more than unit sales. As I said it has to be used to gauge current market trends and position in the market place. As a company that wants to be successful you can't just "reset the clock". That data is used for everything... Budgets, marketing, manufacturing, margins, cost of capital etc…Name it and is has to be used.

A corporation such as Sony has to answer to shareholders. That corporation needs to provide confidence (among many other things) to those shareholders as well as new investors that "this is why you need to have your money vested with us".Im sorry, but there isn't one holder that hasn't asked the question to themselves. Sony had Ex.80% market share 6 years ago and now it's down to Ex.30%. Why did it go down?..who gained the most? and is MY money where it should be.

You asked the question "by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? "
50M in unit sales.. of anything.. is clearly a success, but that's a short sided perception. Especially when your predecessor had roughly double that amount given the same time frame.

Corporate will want to know the what.. why.. and how are there not more sales and what needs to be done to capture more market share back
Those questions are certainly asked in the round tables deep in Sony. If they didn't have them.. they simply wouldn't be around.

I have stocks in Sony so you know..:cool:

the ps3, best selling console in third place for the fifth consecutive year. :P

I like how cows are saying that fanboys were saying the ps3 was never going to catch the 360. Bc I remember since the launch of the ps3 cows were saying sony was going to destroy MS. Every year we had predictions the ps3 was going to overtake the 360; when it finally does happen it will not even matter to the real world. MS beat sony this gen, Nintendo beat both and PC will always be the best.

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

How else do you gauge market share in an industry that resets each time new hardware is released?

PSD has to be used to gauge the performance of the "current" market trends and the success/or failure of the product assortment.

masiisam

and by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? Marketshare does not carry over from generation to generation. Its just pointless. you ask how you gauge marketshare? you gauge it by whats you see right now. Ps2 domination and that marketshare left with that era of consoles. ps3, 360 and Wii all started from 0. thats the only way it could ever make sense. (i think the whole marketshare thing is a convulted mess that makes no sense).

I understand where you're coming from but it's far cry to say it's pointless..Maybe here in SW..but outside these walls of fanboys and meaningless conversations marketshare has just as much importance, if not more than unit sales. As I said it has to be used to gauge current market trends and position in the market place. As a company that wants to be successful you can't just "reset the clock". That data is used for everything... Budgets, marketing, manufacturing, margins, cost of capital etc…Name it and is has to be used.

A corporation such as Sony has to answer to shareholders. That corporation needs to provide confidence (among many other things) to those shareholders as well as new investors that "this is why you need to have your money vested with us".Im sorry, but there isn't one holder that hasn't asked the question to themselves. Sony had Ex.80% market share 6 years ago and now it's down to Ex.30%. Why did it go down?..who gained the most? and is MY money where it should be.

You asked the question "by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? "
50M in unit sales.. of anything.. is clearly a success, but that's a short sided perception. Especially when your predecessor had roughly double that amount given the same time frame.

Corporate will want to know the what.. why.. and how are there not more sales and what needs to be done to capture more market share back
Those questions are certainly asked in the round tables deep in Sony. If they didn't have them.. they simply wouldn't be around.

Here's an example. I'm ignoring Wii and PS2, because I don't have their quarterly sales figures in front of me, so assuming PS3 + 360 = the entire market: In Q3 2010 (Jul-Sep), 360 sold 2.8 million and PS3 sold 3.5 million. 360 had a 44.4% marketshare of home consoles that quarter (again, assuming only PS3 and 360 existed). In Q3 2011, 360 sold 2.3 million and PS3 sold 3.7 million. 360 had a 38.3% marketshare of home consoles for that quarter. 360 experienced a drop in marketshare for Q3, year-over-year, of 6.1%.

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

and by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? Marketshare does not carry over from generation to generation. Its just pointless. you ask how you gauge marketshare? you gauge it by whats you see right now. Ps2 domination and that marketshare left with that era of consoles. ps3, 360 and Wii all started from 0. thats the only way it could ever make sense. (i think the whole marketshare thing is a convulted mess that makes no sense).

ianuilliam

I understand where you're coming from but it's far cry to say it's pointless..Maybe here in SW..but outside these walls of fanboys and meaningless conversations marketshare has just as much importance, if not more than unit sales. As I said it has to be used to gauge current market trends and position in the market place. As a company that wants to be successful you can't just "reset the clock". That data is used for everything... Budgets, marketing, manufacturing, margins, cost of capital etc…Name it and is has to be used.

A corporation such as Sony has to answer to shareholders. That corporation needs to provide confidence (among many other things) to those shareholders as well as new investors that "this is why you need to have your money vested with us".Im sorry, but there isn't one holder that hasn't asked the question to themselves. Sony had Ex.80% market share 6 years ago and now it's down to Ex.30%. Why did it go down?..who gained the most? and is MY money where it should be.

You asked the question "by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? "
50M in unit sales.. of anything.. is clearly a success, but that's a short sided perception. Especially when your predecessor had roughly double that amount given the same time frame.

Corporate will want to know the what.. why.. and how are there not more sales and what needs to be done to capture more market share back
Those questions are certainly asked in the round tables deep in Sony. If they didn't have them.. they simply wouldn't be around.

Here's an example. I'm ignoring Wii and PS2, because I don't have their quarterly sales figures in front of me, so assuming PS3 + 360 = the entire market: In Q3 2010 (Jul-Sep), 360 sold 2.8 million and PS3 sold 3.5 million. 360 had a 44.4% marketshare of home consoles that quarter (again, assuming only PS3 and 360 existed). In Q3 2011, 360 sold 2.3 million and PS3 sold 3.7 million. 360 had a 38.3% marketshare of home consoles for that quarter. 360 experienced a drop in marketshare for Q3, year-over-year, of 6.1%.

I disagree the term is ONLY used in the scope of comparative alternates in the market place in that current time frame (Monthly figures are the most common). Business is not lost or gained in 3 month periods and history plays a larger role in quantifying the net results of all operations. Where we are effective and where we need to improve takes history and while the "clock" resets the history of a predecessor IE Sales targets/market share define a path.

Market share is certainly used (among other things) to define say forecasted new unit sales. If no history is in place because of a superseded SKU, projections take into account current market share and market position of the company. That's simply from an operational standpoint.

Now from an investors standpoint the term is also used in somewhat the same context. Current comparative alternatives in the market place AND history of market share.I simply cant imagine looking at an option …not viewing the trend of a company that had substantial market share loss and not asking the very questions I mentioned before.

Huh, the Wii had no issue at all with the head start 360 had. :o It must be that the PS3 is just inferior to the Wii ? :twisted:

Anyway, here comes my patented response to this matter...

SecretPolice

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Poor Sony, going from the highest selling console of all time to last place. Takes a lot of creativity and imagination to try and spin that into a positive light. Bravo sir, bravo. ianuilliam

Hmm you're listing the disadvantages Sony had to over come and the advantages MS had, but thats not the full story, Sony launched their console off the back of a huge brand name in Playstation, think about that for a second, it was always going to be very tough for a similar console to compete with the Playstation brand. So yeah Xbox had a 4Q headstart...PS3 had the 100m existing PS2 owners!

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Poor Sony, going from the highest selling console of all time to last place. Takes a lot of creativity and imagination to try and spin that into a positive light. Bravo sir, bravo. DAZZER7

Hmm you're listing the disadvantages Sony had to over come and the advantages MS had, but thats not the full story, Sony launched their console off the back of a huge brand name in Playstation, think about that for a second, it was always going to be very tough for a similar console to compete with the Playstation brand. So yeah Xbox had a 4Q headstart...PS3 had the 100m existing PS2 owners!

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="masiisam"]

I understand where you're coming from but it's far cry to say it's pointless..Maybe here in SW..but outside these walls of fanboys and meaningless conversations marketshare has just as much importance, if not more than unit sales. As I said it has to be used to gauge current market trends and position in the market place. As a company that wants to be successful you can't just "reset the clock". That data is used for everything... Budgets, marketing, manufacturing, margins, cost of capital etc…Name it and is has to be used.

A corporation such as Sony has to answer to shareholders. That corporation needs to provide confidence (among many other things) to those shareholders as well as new investors that "this is why you need to have your money vested with us".Im sorry, but there isn't one holder that hasn't asked the question to themselves. Sony had Ex.80% market share 6 years ago and now it's down to Ex.30%. Why did it go down?..who gained the most? and is MY money where it should be.

You asked the question "by what metric do we go by gauging whats a success or failure? "
50M in unit sales.. of anything.. is clearly a success, but that's a short sided perception. Especially when your predecessor had roughly double that amount given the same time frame.

Corporate will want to know the what.. why.. and how are there not more sales and what needs to be done to capture more market share back
Those questions are certainly asked in the round tables deep in Sony. If they didn't have them.. they simply wouldn't be around.

masiisam

Here's an example. I'm ignoring Wii and PS2, because I don't have their quarterly sales figures in front of me, so assuming PS3 + 360 = the entire market: In Q3 2010 (Jul-Sep), 360 sold 2.8 million and PS3 sold 3.5 million. 360 had a 44.4% marketshare of home consoles that quarter (again, assuming only PS3 and 360 existed). In Q3 2011, 360 sold 2.3 million and PS3 sold 3.7 million. 360 had a 38.3% marketshare of home consoles for that quarter. 360 experienced a drop in marketshare for Q3, year-over-year, of 6.1%.

I disagree the term is ONLY used in the scope of comparative alternates in the market place in that current time frame (Monthly figures are the most common). Business is not lost or gained in 3 month periods and history plays a larger role in quantifying the net results of all operations. Where we are effective and where we need to improve takes history and while the "clock" resets the history of a predecessor IE Sales targets/market share define a path.

Market share is certainly used (among other things) to define say forecasted new unit sales. If no history is in place because of a superseded SKU, projections take into account current market share and market position of the company. That's simply from an operational standpoint.

Now from an investors standpoint the term is also used in somewhat the same context. Current comparative alternatives in the market place AND history of market share.I simply cant imagine looking at an option …not viewing the trend of a company that had substantial market share loss and not asking the very questions I mentioned before.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Hmm... I feel like a challenge, let's see if I can do it... PS3 has sold 55.5 million after 20 quarters, having the highest base buy-in price of any console on the market the entire time. 360 sold 44.5 million after 20 quarters, with 4 quarters of being the ONLY "next-gen" console on the market, and having either the cheapest or second cheapest base buy-in price. Bravo Sony, indeed. You'd think an extra year plus a lower price wouldhave given 360 a commanding lead, like the PS2's last gen... Instead, it's down to 2 million, with PS3 gaining by over 2 million a year for the past few years. Actually, that didn't take much creativity or imagination at all.

ianuilliam

Hmm you're listing the disadvantages Sony had to over come and the advantages MS had, but thats not the full story, Sony launched their console off the back of a huge brand name in Playstation, think about that for a second, it was always going to be very tough for a similar console to compete with the Playstation brand. So yeah Xbox had a 4Q headstart...PS3 had the 100m existing PS2 owners!

Yeah you would be stupid to argue against Sony doing a great job in turning things around, what I'm also saying is that MS also did a great job in competing with the clear market leader in first place. No one wants to recognise that fact!

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Hmm you're listing the disadvantages Sony had to over come and the advantages MS had, but thats not the full story, Sony launched their console off the back of a huge brand name in Playstation, think about that for a second, it was always going to be very tough for a similar console to compete with the Playstation brand. So yeah Xbox had a 4Q headstart...PS3 had the 100m existing PS2 owners!

ianuilliam

Are you suggesting Japans console sales have nothing to do with brand loyalty? :| they've gained like 4-5 million sales there and there's nothing MS could have done about it.

brand loyalty in gaming isn't just about the name on the box or an allegiance to the consoles manufacturer :| its the games and quality people associate with it from previous generations, especially at the start of a generation when a console offers little in terms games and is highly priced.

you seem desperate to make out the PS3 somehow had all the odds against it going into this gen, because you think it makes the console look like its done better, which also seems to be your main aim on SW, for some reason.

the fact that a PLAYSTATION system is catching up to XBOX is a huge success alone.

Harisemo

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Hmm you're listing the disadvantages Sony had to over come and the advantages MS had, but thats not the full story, Sony launched their console off the back of a huge brand name in Playstation, think about that for a second, it was always going to be very tough for a similar console to compete with the Playstation brand. So yeah Xbox had a 4Q headstart...PS3 had the 100m existing PS2 owners!

marklarmer

Are you suggesting Japans console sales have nothing to do with brand loyalty? :|

brand loyalty in gaming isn't just about the name on the box or an allegiance to the consoles manufacturer :| its the games and quality people associate with it from previous generations, especially at the start of a generation when a console offers little in terms games and is highly priced.

you seem desperate to make out the PS3 somehow had all the odds against it going into this gen, because you think it makes the console look like its done better, which also seems to be your main aim on SW, for some reason.

And I actually agree with you somewhat... about people looking at previous gens quality and games... I went with PS3 at launch by looking at Sony's track record of pumping out a lot more new quality first party IPs than the other guys, so I guessed that the PS3 would end up with more and better exclusives, and actually comparing features and prices (a 360 that had all the features I was interested in of that $600 PS3 would have cost me significantly more than $600). I wouldn't call that brand loyalty, especially not with the "blind fanboy" implication that that term has around here. It's making a decision based on the games and features... which is what I said.