PS3 to outsell Xbox 360 by 2012 - Analyst

This is so sad, that there are people still out there that think that the 360 is ahead of the PS3. here is a little eye opener for everyone.

360 44.6 million divided by 5 years = 8.92 million sold per year.

PS3 41.6 million divided by 4 years = 10.4 million sold per year.

lets even this out now shall we?

360 8.92 million sold per year multiplied by 5 years = 44.6 million sold in 5 years.

PS3 10.4 million sold per year multiplied by 5 years = 52 million sold in 5 years.

If both consoles came out at the same time 5 years ago, the PS3 would have a 7.4 million console lead.

Sorry people but PS3 has been outselling 360 for awhile now. Its pretty sad that MS has to have a year head start just to be able skew their numbers to make people think that they're winning the HD Console Gaming War, when in fact they aren't even close to the sales per year that Sony is getting.

You all can keep that blind fold on, mines been off for awhile now and I'll continue to see it how it is. The Law of Averages always evens out.

The_saint1976

But it doesn't work that way. You can't simply take the total sales and break it down to an average of per-year. That's making the erroneous assumption that sales are consistent each year and each month, which they are not. Sales fluctuate from month to month with rises and dips, based on a myriad of factors like game releases, holiday seasons, store sales & promotions, new bundle SKU's, and of course drops in prices.

So the 360 did not sell 8.92M each year of its 5 year time, and the PS3 did not sell 10.4M each year of its 4 year time. Which also means you can't assume how many units PS3 "would have" sold in Nov 2005-2006 if it had been released then, or that it's guaranteed to sell another 10.4M in the next year based on an average from the past 4 years.

And if you look at pricing as a factor, even if it had launched side by side with 360, it would be a sales race between a $600 system and a $400 system. Really now, what would sell more in that imaginary first year?

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="The_saint1976"]

This is so sad, that there are people still out there that think that the 360 is ahead of the PS3. here is a little eye opener for everyone.

360 44.6 million divided by 5 years = 8.92 million sold per year.

PS3 41.6 million divided by 4 years = 10.4 million sold per year.

lets even this out now shall we?

360 8.92 million sold per year multiplied by 5 years = 44.6 million sold in 5 years.

PS3 10.4 million sold per year multiplied by 5 years = 52 million sold in 5 years.

If both consoles came out at the same time 5 years ago, the PS3 would have a 7.4 million console lead.

Sorry people but PS3 has been outselling 360 for awhile now. Its pretty sad that MS has to have a year head start just to be able skew their numbers to make people think that they're winning the HD Console Gaming War, when in fact they aren't even close to the sales per year that Sony is getting.

You all can keep that blind fold on, mines been off for awhile now and I'll continue to see it how it is. The Law of Averages always evens out.

Renzokucant

44 is larger than 41. true story.The 360 IS still ahead.

The one year headstart is nonsense since the Wii outsold the 360 and it came out a year later also.It in fact came out within a week of the PS3.So one year really doesn't make a difference at all.

The fact is by the time the PS3 catches up with the 360 IT WONT MATTER.It already doesn't matter.

That's how it is my good man.

thats how it is, heretrix says thats how it is everybody, time to go home now, shows over... orrrrrr keep discussin! i heard MS just announced they have no plans to make another 360...

here's a link to the forum that discusses how there will not be plans for another 360, guess that argument of xbox starting the next gen is null huh

it's on the interwebz, it must be true, an extremely dependable source at that. :roll: null? :lol:

As someone who owned a Dreamcast and an original X-Box, I'm glad the numbers are close enough that neither, the PS3 or 360 will be killed soon. Both said consoles broke down and I got nowhere to fix them. Which reminds me to buy a slim PS2, just in case Sony discontinued them. My venerable phat PS2 still going strong, but you never know. My 360 kept giving me E36 (or is it E38 ) error message, probably gonna die soon.

The one year headstart is nonsense since the Wii outsold the 360 and it came out a year later also.It in fact came out within a week of the PS3.So one year really doesn't make a difference at all.

heretrix

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

The one year headstart is nonsense since the Wii outsold the 360 and it came out a year later also.It in fact came out within a week of the PS3.So one year really doesn't make a difference at all.

shinrabanshou

It all goes to show price matters far more than hardware, features, or time on the market. Something I was saying 4 years ago when cows insisted PS3 would take 1st place in no more than 6 months of its launch.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

The one year headstart is nonsense since the Wii outsold the 360 and it came out a year later also.It in fact came out within a week of the PS3.So one year really doesn't make a difference at all.

AdobeArtist

It all goes to show price matters far more than hardware, features, or time on the market. Something I was saying 4 years ago when cows insisted PS3 would take 1st place in no more than 6 months of its launch.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]False. Of course it made a difference. The level of impact it had may be disputable, but claiming it made no impact whatsoever is untrue.

shinrabanshou

It all goes to show price matters far more than hardware, features, or time on the market. Something I was saying 4 years ago when cows insisted PS3 would take 1st place in no more than 6 months of its launch.

A valid point. Other systems that launched with expensive price tags, NeoGeo, 3DO, Jaguar, were unknown quantities that many people couldn't justify the steep cost for because they were unproven, and they tanked. PS3 unlike those others, had a previously established brand recognition that saved it from sharing the same fate as other high price systems.

BASICALLY what the xbox 360 sells in a year in japan is less than what ps3 sells in one month. In a year the PS3 will close a ~1.2-1.3 million gap just because of the Japanese. Every other region in the world is alot closer.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Renzokucant"]

Well, now the big dawgs are talkin about the PS3 outselling the 360 with 360 still havin a 1 year head start.. i noticed someone on my facebook said yesterday PS3 finally outsold the 360, but im pretty sure that's not real, think its like 44M to 42M at this point. anyway, good read, here

Kane04

how many times has that date been post poned now?

thats how it is, heretrix says thats how it is everybody, time to go home now, shows over... orrrrrr keep discussin! i heard MS just announced they have no plans to make another 360...

here's a link to the forum that discusses how there will not be plans for another 360, guess that argument of xbox starting the next gen is null huh

Renzokucant

They dont have plans means they dont have plans now, in future is another matter

Why would you ever think they would let PS4 release first ? They are not crazy or stupid, they will release xbox 720 same day or earlier than PS4

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

The one year headstart is nonsense since the Wii outsold the 360 and it came out a year later also.It in fact came out within a week of the PS3.So one year really doesn't make a difference at all.

shinrabanshou

1. The PS3 was technically superior.It's going to blow the 360 away.

2. Everyone that owned a PS2 would buy a PS3.

3. The Wii didn't matter

4. It's the XBOX lol.

As so on and so on. The one year headstart, according to a lot of people wouldn't have mattered, people would buy the PS3 EVEN IF IT HAD NO SOFTWARE.(this actually turned out to be true.)

From the link:

"However, Reeves maintained that shifting PS3s in the early days won't be a problem, such is the strength of the PlayStation brand: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games."

So looking back there is no way that one could determine if the two consoles would have launched at the same time, that the PS3 would have done any better than it did launching a year later. It didn't even have PSN at launch.And instead of some of their best titles just being a year away it would have been two years before anything of substantial quality would have made it to market. It could have been a lot worse in fact.

So again, the one year headstart excuse is pure rubbish.

I'm not sure why exactly you're listing what "we were told" or what was said as if it's 2006. It's called hindsight.

I'm not talking about hypotheticals and what ifs. I'm talking about history and realities.

An 8 million installed base deficit had an impact, which is still present in the 3 million installed base deficit.

It's not an "excuse", it doesn't excuse anything, it's simply part of the explanation for the status quo, alongside price, competition post-launch and initial software offerings.

[QUOTE="Renzokucant"]

thats how it is, heretrix says thats how it is everybody, time to go home now, shows over... orrrrrr keep discussin! i heard MS just announced they have no plans to make another 360...

here's a link to the forum that discusses how there will not be plans for another 360, guess that argument of xbox starting the next gen is null huh

AbleFa3

They dont have plans means they dont have plans now, in future is another matter

Why would you ever think they would let PS4 release first ? They are not crazy or stupid, they will release xbox 720 same day or earlier than PS4

ok so what's the deal in here, did anyone figure out that managing to pass the 360 by 2012 is a huge failure from sonys perspective yet?

did anyone remember how sony and fans were the most arrogant people on the planet at launch?

anyone remember how sony ridiculed the wii?

anyone remember that you could not swing a corded controller without hitting a stupid sony executive quote?

anyone remember the words used so many times in sw "blown out of the water"?

anyone remember the only importance of sales is 3rd party support and nobody is in danger of losing that?

maybe by this time sony deserves next to last place because they have improved much more than either of the other systems but come-on where else did they have to go but up?

I'm not sure why exactly you're listing what "we were told" or what was said as if it's 2006. It's called hindsight.

I'm not talking about hypotheticals and what ifs. I'm talking about history and realities.

An 8 million installed base deficit had an impact, which is still present in the 3 million installed base deficit.

It's not an "excuse", it doesn't excuse anything, it's simply part of the explanation for the status quo, alongside price, competition post-launch and initial software offerings.

shinrabanshou

Launching a year later shouldn't matter because if you REALLY want something it doesn't matter when it comes out it would still sell. Beyond ANY factor, that includes price, quality of software, blah, blah, blah. None of that would matter.People would buy it.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

I'm not sure why exactly you're listing what "we were told" or what was said as if it's 2006. It's called hindsight.

I'm not talking about hypotheticals and what ifs. I'm talking about history and realities.

An 8 million installed base deficit had an impact, which is still present in the 3 million installed base deficit.

It's not an "excuse", it doesn't excuse anything, it's simply part of the explanation for the status quo, alongside price, competition post-launch and initial software offerings.

heretrix

Launching a year later shouldn't matter because if you REALLY want something it doesn't matter when it comes out it would still sell. Beyond ANY factor, that includes price, quality of software, blah, blah, blah. None of that would matter.People would buy it.

If you really think that the market factors I listed weren't instrumental in establishing the status quo of this console generation, and are completely irrelevant, and really believe that last sentence in your quote, then frankly there's no point in continuing any discussion.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

The one year headstart is nonsense since the Wii outsold the 360 and it came out a year later also.It in fact came out within a week of the PS3.So one year really doesn't make a difference at all.

heretrix

1. The PS3 was technically superior.It's going to blow the 360 away.

2. Everyone that owned a PS2 would buy a PS3.

3. The Wii didn't matter

4. It's the XBOX lol.

As so on and so on. The one year headstart, according to a lot of people wouldn't have mattered, people would buy the PS3 EVEN IF IT HAD NO SOFTWARE.(this actually turned out to be true.)

From the link:

"However, Reeves maintained that shifting PS3s in the early days won't be a problem, such is the strength of the PlayStation brand: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games."

So looking back there is no way that one could determine if the two consoles would have launched at the same time, that the PS3 would have done any better than it did launching a year later. It didn't even have PSN at launch.And instead of some of their best titles just being a year away it would have been two years before anything of substantial quality would have made it to market. It could have been a lot worse in fact.

So again, the one year headstart excuse is pure rubbish.

Of course a year gap between launches had an effect. What effect is purely conjecture, but unless you believe the current sales of the 2 HD consoles would have been IDENTICAL now even if the PS3 launched alongside the 360 then it plainly had some impact. You don't have to believe that the PS3 would even be ahead now to admit that. Saying it had an effect isn't the same as saying that gap was solely responsible for the current conditions, or that a one year gap wasn't insurmountable through other factors. But if you're trying to look at the landscape honestly, you have to include all the factors.

And where are you getting that the PSN wasn't ready at launch? I admit, I got a PS3 about 10 days late, but I was playing R:FoM right off the bat...

Suppositions are hypotheticals. You listed a bunch of dumb PR, or fanboy statements, that have no real bearing on the market, made around the time of launch and are saying that's the basis for what should have happened rather than market variables? Market variables dictated what did happen.

If you really think that the market factors I listed weren't instrumental in establishing the status quo of this console generation, and are completely irrelevant, and really believe that last sentence in your quote, then frankly there's no point in continuing any discussion.

shinrabanshou

Had they launched together would things have been different? It's certainly possible, but to be honest neither us have no way of knowing how it would have turned out for sure.I have no problem admitting that.

You are trying to explain something to me that I already know and it kind of shows you never really understood my point.(And that's probably my fault)

If the PS3 had launched a year earlier the same conditions probably would not have been present.Therefore it's impossible to say that there would have been a better outcome for the PS3, hell it could have turned out even worse or it might have been even better.Your crystal ball certainly isn't any better than mine. Even with your facts.That's all I was ever trying to say. Like I said, it's probably my fault as I'm probably not communicating it as well as I'd like.

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]False. Of course it made a difference. The level of impact it had may be disputable, but claiming it made no impact whatsoever is untrue.

santoron

1. The PS3 was technically superior.It's going to blow the 360 away.

2. Everyone that owned a PS2 would buy a PS3.

3. The Wii didn't matter

4. It's the XBOX lol.

As so on and so on. The one year headstart, according to a lot of people wouldn't have mattered, people would buy the PS3 EVEN IF IT HAD NO SOFTWARE.(this actually turned out to be true.)

From the link:

"However, Reeves maintained that shifting PS3s in the early days won't be a problem, such is the strength of the PlayStation brand: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games."

So looking back there is no way that one could determine if the two consoles would have launched at the same time, that the PS3 would have done any better than it did launching a year later. It didn't even have PSN at launch.And instead of some of their best titles just being a year away it would have been two years before anything of substantial quality would have made it to market. It could have been a lot worse in fact.

So again, the one year headstart excuse is pure rubbish.

Of course a year gap between launches had an effect. What effect is purely conjecture, but unless you believe the current sales of the 2 HD consoles would have been IDENTICAL now even if the PS3 launched alongside the 360 then it plainly had some impact. You don't have to believe that the PS3 would even be ahead now to admit that. Saying it had an effect isn't the same as saying that gap was solely responsible for the current conditions, or that a one year gap wasn't insurmountable through other factors. But if you're trying to look at the landscape honestly, you have to include all the factors.

And where are you getting that the PSN wasn't ready at launch? I admit, I got a PS3 about 10 days late, but I was playing R:FoM right off the bat...

I don't think I got my point across as well as I wanted.I do believe if the 2 consoles launched together the results would be different. How different nobody knows. I just don't believe in the absolute positive result for Sony that many people pull out their butts sometimes.heretrix

I gotcha. I don't bother with the discussion on how things might have been if blah blah blah either... because no one can know, so everyone just argues opinion. But it deserves a mention right alongside every other Sony/Kutaragi blunder associated with the PS3 launch. :lol:

Dude your argument has always been one big excuse. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.Your "reasons" are just excuses as to why the PS3 has not done as well as it's predecessor. Are your facts correct? I never doubted that they were. Do they matter? Not really because I'm not talking about WHY the PS3 failed.I'm talking about the impact that the one year head start would have made.So the use of your market variables is pretty much useless to a point.

Had they launched together would things have been different? It's certainly possible, but to be honest neither us have no way of knowing how it would have turned out for sure.I have no problem admitting that.

You are trying to explain something to me that I already know and it kind of shows you never really understood my point.(And that's probably my fault)

If the PS3 had launched a year earlier the same conditions probably would not have been present.Therefore it's impossible to say that there would have been a better outcome for the PS3, hell it could have turned out even worse or it might have been even better.Your crystal ball certainly isn't any better than mine. Even with your facts.That's all I was ever trying to say. Like I said, it's probably my fault as I'm probably not communicating it as well as I'd like.

heretrix

And I would draw a distinction between an "excuse" and an "explanation." The former implies some sort of unfairness, or that some sort of handicap should apply or that they should be forgiven for their blunders. And I don't think any of that is the case. All's fair in love, war and business (as long as it's legal).

But I still see all those factors as part and parcel of an explanation for the current situation. It doesn't do anything whatsoever to change the current situation. It doesn't take away anything from the success of the winner(s). And it doesn't do anything to mitigate the situation for the loser of the three.

Truth is.... By 2012 Microsoft wont care if the PS3 passes it in sales. They would of already sold as much as theyneeded and be looking towards the next console most likely in 2013.

How many times have we seen this type of threat? Sales don't really matter but people keep acting like they care for some reason.

im confident GT5 will make a huge impact on ps3 salesRenzokucant

I just dont see it happening..I think people that have kept up with the game are sick and tired of it already and its not even out. Tired of the talk,tired of the delays, tired of it all...jmho though..

But it doesn't work that way. You can't simply take the total sales and break it down to an average of per-year. That's making the erroneous assumption that sales are consistent each year and each month, which they are not. Sales fluctuate from month to month with rises and dips, based on a myriad of factors like game releases, holiday seasons, store sales & promotions, new bundle SKU's, and of course drops in prices.

AdobeArtist

I fail to see how that was not a fair representation of the success of the consoles. If you don't make an average like sales per year then they aren't on the same playing field. According to you: Product A came out 5 years ago and has sold 20 million units. Product B came out 1 year ago and sold 10 million units. Product A is more successful that product B. if you fairly represent the two products on an even playing field Product B is better than product A

heh, you gotta love that all the dudes that were telling me to prepare to see the 360 get crushed in sales in 2006 are now wanting to rub it in that the ps3 may squeek by in sales in 2012.

omg! teh major pwnage!

thanks for the entertainment.

It's almost certain to happen in 2011.

heh, you gotta love that all the dudes that were telling me to prepare to see the 360 get crushed in sales in 2006 are now wanting to rub it in that the ps3 may squeek by in sales in 2012.

omg! teh major pwnage!

thanks for the entertainment.

heh, you gotta love that all the dudes that were telling me to prepare to see the 360 get crushed in sales in 2006 are now wanting to rub it in that the ps3 may squeek by in sales in 2012.

omg! teh major pwnage!

thanks for the entertainment.

Riverwolf007

Of course the reverse is also true. The people who 2 years ago lauded sales daily and loudly declared that the PS3 could Never pass the 360 in sales are now acting like it doesn't matter anymore. There's ownage out there for all the fanboys.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, you gotta love that all the dudes that were telling me to prepare to see the 360 get crushed in sales in 2006 are now wanting to rub it in that the ps3 may squeek by in sales in 2012.

omg! teh major pwnage!

thanks for the entertainment.

Of course the reverse is also true. The people who 2 years ago lauded sales daily and loudly declared that the PS3 could Never pass the 360 in sales are now acting like it doesn't matter anymore. There's ownage out there for all the fanboys.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, you gotta love that all the dudes that were telling me to prepare to see the 360 get crushed in sales in 2006 are now wanting to rub it in that the ps3 may squeek by in sales in 2012.

omg! teh major pwnage!

thanks for the entertainment.

blue_hazy_basic

Of course the reverse is also true. The people who 2 years ago lauded sales daily and loudly declared that the PS3 could Never pass the 360 in sales are now acting like it doesn't matter anymore. There's ownage out there for all the fanboys.

Daamit man you're a one man wrecking crew of next gen platforms! We're ALL DOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!! :twisted:

Can't you go root on OnLive or something for a bit? :lol:

(Just kidding, Riku, don't start another thread.... please)

its obvious 360 is on its way down and ps3 on its way up. PS3 WILL REIGN SUPREME, LEMS ARE YOU MAD? DOES IT HURT? ARE YOU GOING TO CRY?

muaahhahahahahahhahaha

right4dead

its obvious 360 is on its way down and ps3 on its way up. PS3 WILL REIGN SUPREME, LEMS ARE YOU MAD? DOES IT HURT? ARE YOU GOING TO CRY?

muaahhahahahahahhahaha

right4dead

What PS3 fans are now claiming as a "victory" would have been decreed as impossible back in 2005. I guess if you lower expectations enough you can eventually claim some sort of victory.

Steppy_76

Truth , fanboy Cows from 2006 would be ashamed to no end of modern Cows if they could magically travel in time , lowering standards all the time and fighting for scraps under the reighn of the then ridiculed Revolution .

Better hope Kinect doesn't take off or there is going to be real hurting and back to " Sales doesn't really matter " again !

What happened to this thread? I thought we stopped taking analysts seriously? Well i guess only when it talks about ps3 surpassing the 360. Then we make a 20page thread about it:P

PS3 doesn't even need to outsell xbox in total units, because they have already won in my book. Xbox had a 12 month headstart to grab the next gen market. XBox360 has sold 12% less units than ps3 per month since their releases. I would say selling 12% more than a company that throws away hundreds of millions to ensure its success is a big win. I hope you aren't in tatters lems.

last gen Sony dominated...this gen they will catch up by the time new consoles are announced...i think Sony knows that's a big difference

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

heh, you gotta love that all the dudes that were telling me to prepare to see the 360 get crushed in sales in 2006 are now wanting to rub it in that the ps3 may squeek by in sales in 2012.

omg! teh major pwnage!

thanks for the entertainment.

santoron

Of course the reverse is also true. The people who 2 years ago lauded sales daily and loudly declared that the PS3 could Never pass the 360 in sales are now acting like it doesn't matter anymore. There's ownage out there for all the fanboys.

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"][QUOTE="nervmeister"] Had 360 not released a year earlier, 360 would've lost the race years ago. See what I did there?

And besides, it doesn't matter who releases a new console first. Did Sega releasing Dreamcast first mean that they won the gen prior with Saturn? Hell no!

nervmeister

PS3 doesn't even need to outsell xbox in total units, because they have already won in my book. Xbox had a 12 month headstart to grab the next gen market. XBox360 has sold 12% less units than ps3 per month since their releases. I would say selling 12% more than a company that throws away hundreds of millions to ensure its success is a big win. I hope you aren't in tatters lems.

mrgreen108

"Lems" are in tatters every time they see a quarterly financial report from both MS and Sony. :lol:

[QUOTE="Renzokucant"]

Well, now the big dawgs are talkin about the PS3 outselling the 360 with 360 still havin a 1 year head start.. i noticed someone on my facebook said yesterday PS3 finally outsold the 360, but im pretty sure that's not real, think its like 44M to 42M at this point. anyway, good read, here

how many times has that date been post poned now?

This is two years too late.:cry:

PS3 doesn't even need to outsell xbox in total units, because they have already won in my book. Xbox had a 12 month headstart to grab the next gen market. XBox360 has sold 12% less units than ps3 per month since their releases. I would say selling 12% more than a company that throws away hundreds of millions to ensure its success is a big win. I hope you aren't in tatters lems.

mrgreen108

:lol: keep telling yourself this. just remember......150 million.

sony lost.