[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="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!

And at the end of the day gaming needs to fit into customers' family life and perception of fun and not the digital equivalent of going to a proctologist.

They could limit it to one console, and customers can tell Sony where to shove that console.

The Playstation brand is a sinking ship, aside from 2-3 IP's they really have nothing interesting going on, their hardware is badly designed and inferior, customers are terrified to enter their credit card # for fear of getting their information stolen, we just got done spending a month and a half with no online due to Sony's negligence, and the best market strategy they could come up with was "Hey let's cut down their usage rights."

This after spending 5 years gradually stripping the PS3 of functionality like backwards compatibility and Linux support, putting in "Online Pass" crap that's almost universally hated, and changing their EULA to keep people from suing them.

Sony needs money?

I need money too, to upgrade my computer so I don't have to deal with trash companies like Sony and their stupid ideas.

These people are out of touch and it's only a matter of time before people realize it and their stock price tanks.

ZombieKiller7

[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%.

Sharing games via PSN was never an intended feature. It has always been piracy to do it. Thus they aren't removing a feature, they are just enforcing the rules that have been in place since day one a little more strictly. And @ the people whining because they used to share console games, and it was ok, but now they can't do it with DL games... There's a big difference. If I shared a NES game with my cousin, it meant only one of us was playing it a time... because I had to physically let him borrow my copy. If you are buying (or splitting the cost) of a game on PSN, and sharing it with 4 other friends, so you can all play it at the same time together, it's no different from buying a disc-based game, then hacking the drm and making 4 copies for your friends. Its piracy. If you want to "share" it, the way you would a physical copy, you can. Use one of your activations to share it with a firend... when he's done, deactivate your account on his console, and let another friend use an activation to play it, and so on... Its still, technically, violating the TOU, but hey, the people who called this a "feature" don't care about that anyway, amirite?

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="Overlord93"]

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

You're missing the point. Just because you state things as your "opinions" does not immediately infuse them with some unassailable, subjective "shield" against facts.

It's like me saying:

In my opinion, the xbox 360 only plays nintendo games.

The inclusion of "In my opinion" does not mean that others can't point out that I'm 100% incorrect.

I'm positing a (incorrect) fact and labeling it opinion. It is perfectly reasonable for people to point out that it's NOT an opinion and it's also INCORRECT.

iamrob7

As he said, someone could say "in my opinion pigs can fly", by your rationale no one is allowed to question that opinion because it is an opinion, despite the fact that it is contrary to common factual understanding of the pig.

For example when you talk about DRM making games "slow to start up", someone could say well installing and playing a game on Steam (DRM) requires 4 or 5 clicks of a mouse, that's all. On top of that the PC load times are always considerably quicker than a console, so it will load and run faster. They aren't saying you are not entitled to your opinion, they are simply suggesting it is misinformed and based on an erroneous grasp of the practicalities involved. An entirely reasonable point.

lets see... I bought the first 2 DLCs. Still need to buy Honest Hearts and Old World Blues.

So 2 questions: Would it be cheaper to buy the 2 DLCs or the ultimate edition (i didnt see a price shown)? also, would my save file from the Vanilla version load into the Ultimate edition?

Also.. patches took care of the bugs that became legendary online. The game was really not as bad as people made it out to be as far as glitches go.. yeah your occaisonal items falling through tables and enemies getting stuck, but nothing that you havent seen in many games.

EDIT: Still need to buy Lonesome Rd and Old World Blues

enzyme36

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i think we should start comparing total sales of all exclusives on each platform, individual exclusives on 360 sell more but with the ps3 the money is spread between more exclusives, i don't believe it's a cas of Ps3 owners not buying excluisves i think it's a case of ps3 owners buyin different exclusives to each other because they have more to choose from.delta3074

Yep... after paying $120ish for the Fallout3 CE and all the DLC, only to have the GotY edition come out for $60 shortly after the last DLC, I made myself wait for NV. Now I can keep busy with this until the Complete version of Skyrim comes out. :)