Why Didn't X360 Outsell PS3?

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

Seems like a whole lot of assumptions to get around the lack of evidence.  And why woud you assume the one product that got discontinued was the one that managed to maintain it's sales rate?

asylumni

The fact that Sonys themselves said in the report that PS3, PSP Vita and PSP sales were down YoY. They did not say PS2 sales were down YoY (which shipped 4.1 million I think FY11) so we assume it shipped a similar amount FY12. Yes it was discontinued, but only during the last quarter of the year (Jan 13)

But lack of proof is not proof.  It's not surprising that Sony didn't highlight the performance of a console that was discontinued and would have very little to no impact on financials going forward.  Yes, it sold 4.1 Million in FY2011, down from 6.4 in FY2010 and 7.3 in FY2009.  Assuming it managed the same rate in 2012 as it did in 2011 simply because Sony didn't say it declined seems erroneous to me.

I'm not saying it is proof. I'm saying that everything Sony have said in their report would lead everyone to believe the PS3 is still last, NOT the other way around. Neither scenario is proven though, I agree.

So performance of the PS2 had little to no impact, yet they go out of their way to mention PSP sales were down? A console which only shipped 6-7 million FY11?

I'm not buying it. They ommited saying PS2 sales were down for good reason. They merged PS2 and PS3 sales for good reason. And they haven't come out saying they've overtaken the 360 (or even said they are the leading HD console) for good reason.

I'll just leave it at that.

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

[QUOTE="RR360DD"]

The fact that Sonys themselves said in the report that PS3, PSP Vita and PSP sales were down YoY. They did not say PS2 sales were down YoY (which shipped 4.1 million I think FY11) so we assume it shipped a similar amount FY12. Yes it was discontinued, but only during the last quarter of the year (Jan 13)

RR360DD

But lack of proof is not proof.  It's not surprising that Sony didn't highlight the performance of a console that was discontinued and would have very little to no impact on financials going forward.  Yes, it sold 4.1 Million in FY2011, down from 6.4 in FY2010 and 7.3 in FY2009.  Assuming it managed the same rate in 2012 as it did in 2011 simply because Sony didn't say it declined seems erroneous to me.

I'm not saying it is proof. I'm saying that everything Sony have said in their report would lead everyone to believe the PS3 is still last, NOT the other way around. Neither scenario is proven though, I agree.

So performance of the PS2 had little to no impact, yet they go out of their way to mention PSP sales were down? A console which only shipped 6-7 million FY11?

I'm not buying it. They ommited saying PS2 sales were down for good reason. They merged PS2 and PS3 sales for good reason. And they haven't come out saying they've overtaken the 360 (or even said they are the leading HD console) for good reason.

I'll just leave it at that.

You may have missed the edit.  PS2 will have little to no impact going forward.  It's discontinued and companies very seldom talk about the products they don't sell anymore in their fiscal reports.  PSP is still an active product that they are investing in and producing.

As for them not bragging about passing 360 sales,  there can be numerous reasons aside from it not happening.  Maybe it's not by enough that they would feel safe from having MS come back next quarter saying they retook the lead.  Maybe they felt 2nd place in a generation wasn't something to brag about.  Maybe they had other more important information to impart than supplying fodder for their gaming fanatics.  Maybe they had bigger issues to deal with than sifting through mounds of data to seperate PS2 from PS3 sales.  We just don't know (if only there were reporters that focused solely on gaming that could ask why).

I just think it's a misstake to assume things one way or the other.

Japan + Europe + Canada + Australia + Singapore > USA 

Really, at the end of the day that was not Microsoft's intent. I mean to expect to outsell a company that sold over 100 million consoles the generation before is kind of a little too high in the expectations department. They did what they needed to and that was to take a big peice of the market away, in which they did. Now their hope is to add on to that moving forward. Not off to a great start publicity wise, but none the less they have made up for it and in time I think both will be neck and neck as they were this past generation.

Honestly even if you are a xbox fanboy you gotta give the ps3 props for making a comeback. I'm not sure the ps3 has outsold the 360 but even if it didn't they are only 1-2 million apart. That's huge after what the ps3 went through.

Chris_Williams

Well in 2009, MS did the original 180, dropped core to go upwards of 65% casual to chase the Wii's pot of gold with Kinect(lol). Heil68

Japan + Europe + Canada + Australia + Singapore > USA 

drakekratos

The Playstation brand is still a stronger one worldwide. 360 totally should've smoked PS3, though. But it didn't. chapnzaba

in short 

ps3>xbox360

blamix99

sony goes from 70% market share and the undisputed king of home gaming to less than a 30% share of the market and you call out the 360 for its failure?

really?

:lol:

 

Riverwolf007

^ this :lol:

The Playstation brand is still a stronger one worldwide. 360 totally should've smoked PS3, though. But it didn't. chapnzaba

Thats because the playstation name has better exclusives and more of them.

It's called brand recognition, to be frank after the PS2 the PS3 should have totally dominated but Sony screwed up big time.

Sony lost so much of its position in just one generation, game sales horrible, reduced to a mediastation... cows still claiming ownage, sw is hilarious. Keep on cowing cows, entertain us.

It started strong, but lacked new IPs late in the gen.

Also some of it's IPs got mediocre - Gears.

Japan alone more than accounts for the difference, and the 360 never really had a chance there.  Also Europe outside the UK.

RROD actually is one of the primary reasons why 360 got a huge sale really. that and peer pressurestrawhatlupi

[QUOTE="strawhatlupi"]RROD actually is one of the primary reasons why 360 got a huge sale really. that and peer pressureMakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="strawhatlupi"]RROD actually is one of the primary reasons why 360 got a huge sale really. that and peer pressurestrawhatlupi

Sony only had a one year warranty for the YLOD. Most people had to pay to get it repaired. 

[QUOTE="strawhatlupi"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]they fixed that for free dumb ass.

xhawk27

Sony only had a one year warranty for the YLOD. Most people had to pay to get it repaired. 

[QUOTE="xhawk27"]

[QUOTE="strawhatlupi"] within the 3 year warranty sure.strawhatlupi

Sony only had a one year warranty for the YLOD. Most people had to pay to get it repaired. 

The failure rate for the PS3 was higher than 10% if I recall the numbers many years ago. Yeah sure the 360 had higher but MS made good on the warranty for any 360 for three years that is longer than Sony had. Also you can put the half the blame on AMD. 

[QUOTE="strawhatlupi"][QUOTE="xhawk27"]

Sony only had a one year warranty for the YLOD. Most people had to pay to get it repaired. 

xhawk27

The failure rate for the PS3 was higher than 10% if I recall the numbers many years ago. Yeah sure the 360 had higher but MS made good on the warranty for any 360 for three years that is longer than Sony had. Also you can put the half the blame on AMD. 

quoted "That's roughly half the 33% failure rate once claimed by Best Buy, Gamestop and EB Games, but way above the standard 3-5% failure rate Microsoft announced a year ago... the only official numbers they've ever released.  By comparison, their main competition - Sony's PlayStation 3 - hovers in the 3% range for hardware failures."

1 yr warranty is normal and makes a lot of business sense.

MS were force to extend it to 3 years because they know their product is inherently defective,they will lose sales (no one will buy a defective product without some justifying insurance),they will have to recall the poducts and they risk facing class action law suit if they stick to a 1 year warranty.

360 IS A POS

whatever the place of these guys, i thought that if ms continued what they were doing from the first half of the gen then they could have been in the conversation for number one. looks like ms has the same strategy this gen as well....start off strong by buying exclusivity for third party games...then push all the casual non gaming stuff after those exclusives turn mult plats.

but to answer your question....the miniscule lead happened because they dropped the ball

[QUOTE="Coolyfett"]

[QUOTE="MightyMuna"]

Right now they are pretty much tie or the difference between them is miniscule.

I ask this question because in NA X360 launched a year earlier and here in Europe X360 launched 16 months before PS3. But most importantly, when PS3 launched it was £425 and X360 was £209(Core) and £279(Premium). In addition to that, X360 has enjoyed two holiday seasons and had killer titles such as Gears of War. 

 

Therefore, with all these advantages, why didn't it maintain its worldwide lead? I really can't see any reason why. Blu-ray?

WilliamRLBaker

Come on now, do you really think that people take you seriously?

You are one of the most delusional trolls on here, you must know that the PS3 has overtaken the 360 in sales, it's common knowledge at this point.

Plus I know you must know that the 360 had an extremly high failure rate till somewhere around 2009-2010.

Then again you could just be a blind fanboy that will never look at the facts, oh wait you've already proven that.

Oh and by the way you always want proof but then you always act like the proof isn't good enough, so if you're so right then for the first time why don't you break out the links to your impeccable sources and prove us all wrong.

Yep that's what I thought, no links, no proof, all BS.

You must be talking about VGchartz who REFUSE to let the Xbox 360 get ahead despite being the only one with an official announcement of 78+ million.Jakandsigz

VGchartz currently has the PS3 at 78.35 million so even if they updated to the 360 to 78.2 the PS3 would still be in the leading world wide sales.

http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/

I think it is because alot of people including myself owned both consoles this generation, that said the vast majority of people who owned both I would expect use the 360 far more, so although the sales were similar, it was most certainly the Xbox getting more use!

I'd give these 3 reasons:

1 - Didn't sustain the flow of great exclusives from mid to end of it's "life";

2 - Playstation still was (maybe still is) a stronger brand;

3 - RROD diminished the impact of the price gap between both systems by damaging credibility.

yes

It lacked a Blu Ray player and Japan.

GravityX

lol, that massive sony victory in which sony has done so well they have refused to release sales numbers for the last 3 years.

:lol:

The PS brand is stronger worldwide plus it's not as old as the 360.