Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sony XBox (Games) Games

PS3 "Strong Contender" To Overtake Xbox 360 276

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the atari-jaguar-will-rise-again dept.
donniebaseball23 writes "Xbox 360 has been having an incredible year so far in 2011, but on a global scale Sony's PS3 is still gaining ground. In fact, this year PS3 has outpaced Xbox 360 by 10% worldwide, analysts have pointed out. While the Wii has clearly won the race for this console generation, the battle for second place is neck and neck, and PS3 has a good shot of overtaking Xbox 360. 'As for second place, as far as the hardcore market is concerned, I'd say PS3 is a strong contender for that position,' commented M2 Research analyst Billy Pidgeon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3 "Strong Contender" To Overtake Xbox 360

Comments Filter:
  • It's the most updateable Blu-Ray player. I don't actually know anyone who uses it for games (although this is obviously a statistically insignificant sample size).
    • by bloodhawk (813939)
      That's one incredibly expensive blu-ray player.
      • by Thantik (1207112)

        Back when Blu-Ray players first came out, that wasn't the case at all. You could either buy a $300 Blu-ray player, or a $300 PS3...

        • Your nostalgia glasses fail you. It was $500 for the 20gb model without an HDMI port, with $600 for the 60gb with. And once you add in tax, a game (c'mon, who buys a $600 blu-ray player and doesn't buy at least a couple games... The PS3 does have games, just not a lot of good exclusive ones) and an HDMI cable, you were looking at a $700 to $800 investment in that PS3.

          • Every PS3 model has an HDMI port. While they were considering releasing a model without it, every shipped PS3 has one.

      • Re:Blu-Ray (Score:5, Informative)

        by CronoCloud (590650) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `noruaduolconorc'> on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:21PM (#36888972)

        It was Samsung that released the first blu-ray player to market in 2006...and it cost almost a thousand dollars. Even the Deluxe PS3 model released in October of that year was cheap compared to that. And also the PS3 can do BonusView, BD-Live and 3D blu-ray titles, and that Samsung model could not be updated to do so.

        And even now and 299 the PS3 is still a pretty good deal. Massive storage, media features, a build in web browser, and games. It competes fairly well with things like Iomega's Boxee thing.

        • But how well does a PS3 compete with a home theater PC? Unlike PC, PS3 since 3.21 has no official open development, nor does it even have anything like Xbox Live Indie Games.
          • by tibman (623933)

            PS3 makes for a crappy media computer. It can't play as many audio/video formats and you can't automate any tasks since the PS3 isn't programmable in any way.

            I have a decent setup and i didn't do any research to make it. The pc has boxee to play vids. uTorrent has RSS feeds to my favorite shows. So after a show airs, it automatically downloads to a storage box, boxee picks it up as a new episode, i sit down at the TV and see all the new episodes to watch. All of the software is free. The PS3 should be

      • That's one incredibly expensive blu-ray player.

        Given the other things it can do as well (Netflix, random games, etc) combined with, as stated, the ease of updating - it's actually a pretty easy purchase to make compared to any standalone disc player.

        • by bloodhawk (813939)
          3 or 4 years ago that was the case, nowadays TV's and stand alone blu ray players can do all that at a fraction of the cost, if you don't play the games it is an expensive device.
      • Last December, the cheap-ass BD players cost about $100 on sale. The ones I might reasonably trust to be reliable brands and models cost $200, and even then reviews were mixed. For $100 more, I not only get a BD system that's been essentially tested by millions of people, I can also play games on it (I'm not a big gamer).

        For me the one real disappointment is Youtube on PS3. It blows chunks for playing HD Youtube videos on my HD TV. There's workarounds but why are they even needed?

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      And WHY? Your PS3 does not play BluRays any better than my $139.00 LG player... In fact I have netflix, HULU+, blockbuster streaming and can download "apps" for it.

      Only a fool would buy a PS3 just as a bluray player, Game system? yes. BluRay player? That's just nuts.

      Oh and high end installs Dont use a PS3, they use a LG or Sony BD player... because they integrate to real control systems like Crestron and AMX. Every time I have tried integrating a PS3, the garbage BLuetooth to IR gateways are unreliab

      • Honestly, it's the fact that it's been well supported for updates (until the PS4 is released) would be a decent reason. The fact is, the majority of BlueRay players at the low end haven't been updated well, or even well supported is a big deal. I finally broke down, and put a BlueRay drive in my HTPC earlier this year. My biggest reason for avoiding BluRay, and the PS3 is it's Sony. I think that HD-DVD *should* have won in a free market, without the backroom deal, and Sony's vertical monopoly over bluer
      • by wallsg (58203)

        Oh and high end installs Dont use a PS3, they use a LG or Sony BD player... because they integrate to real control systems like Crestron and AMX. Every time I have tried integrating a PS3, the garbage BLuetooth to IR gateways are unreliable.

        The Logitech version for use with the Harmony remote line works perfectly. I have had zero issues with it in over a year of use. On/off even works (which it does not for most others).

    • Is it any more updaetable than any of Sony's own dedicated Blu-Ray players?

  • It's pretty late in the game for this generation of consoles. This seems like a 'who finished first' situation. Who cares? I'd rather the console makers concentrate on product support while working on making things better for the next generation of hardware.
    • I agree. This is an article about how will come in second in what is probably the last major game console generation.

      Sony used Playstation to promote blu-ray. MS was just in there because they felt they needed to defend that front. Nintendo won their survival by coming in first.

      I mean if they really wanted to win they'd come out with the next generation console after five years. The battle is over. The peace is that no one cares. You can hook your PC up to your HDTV and you can buy a computer for less

      • by Dutch Gun (899105)

        The last major game console generation? Yeah, right...

        I've heard the same predictions about mobile phones becoming the new dominant game system. Mobile phones are a growing market, certainly, but why does a growing market in one area mean the death of a market in another? I've never understood that logic. I have no interest in mobile gaming, since I have a screen to myself and rarely find myself in a position where I have a lot of time with just a phone to entertain me. My TV makes a much better gaming

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Hecatonchires (231908)

          Because people have limited budgets of time and money. If you're playing a game on your mobile, your console is probably gathering dust. If your new handset costs $200 and is going to be everywhere you are, are you going to spend another $300 on a console that stays in the living room?

          • If your new handset costs $200 and is going to be everywhere you are, are you going to spend another $300 on a console that stays in the living room?

            Yes, because a console provides for players 2, 3, and 4.

          • by artor3 (1344997)

            I don't know of anyone who comes home after a long day, sits down on the couch, and plays Angry Birds for an hour to unwind. Mobile games tend to be played in short bursts when you're bored. On the bus, at the airport, etc... But games with deeper gameplay, better graphics, better controls, better multiplayer, and a more comfortable posture to play will always be preferred for leisure time.

            And as for money.... yes, people will spend the extra $300 on a console. The sort of people who play console games

        • The real platform for cutting edge games is Facebook - it's ubiquitous, the games are designed to be viral and addictive (and in some cases, actually fun, though that doesn't seem to be a requirement), they mostly run on PCs but increasingly also work on mobile phones, and either they're freemium or cheap.

          Your friend Bob's Zombie has just become Godfather!

          Roger has just sent you a Shrubbery!

          No, I'm not the target market, but it seems to be pervasive and growing, assuming that either Google+ doesn't kil

      • Well, maybe.. an AMD E-350 (lowest end motherboard/cpu I'd use for HTPC) will run you about $250 for workable hardware, and another $150 for licensed software, so $400, which isn't less, but more flexible.. another $100 or so for universal programmable remote, and wireless htpc keyboard/mouse (still can't find a good one). And yet $100 more, if you plan on doing even light gaming on the thing, for better hardware. It isn't particularly bad, and I prefer an HTPC, but I can see the appeal.
      • You are out of your mind. Don't take offense, I'm not trolling. But you are (insane, or trolling). We are not yet looking at the last generation of video game consoles. We actually already had that one. PS2 and Xbox were the last generation of "real" consoles. The PS3 and to a much greater extent, the Xbox360 are media consoles, not game consoles. This is not an accident. Back when MS got in the game, everyone was confused. Why would a computer software maker want to make a video game console? MS
    • It's pretty late in the game for this generation of consoles. This seems like a 'who finished first' situation. Who cares? I'd rather the console makers concentrate on product support while working on making things better for the next generation of hardware.

      There is still money to be made as games, consoles and accessories are still being sold. This is roughly when a console is most profitable. Also, "second place" really means "first place high-performance console". This is an important distinction when wooing game devs who are writing games that require more horsepower than the Wii offers.

    • It matters because the total sales of this generation of consoles are used by game companies to project the sales of the next generation. That means that the generation that does the best will be best supported with launch titles.
      • by macshit (157376)

        It matters because the total sales of this generation of consoles are used by game companies to project the sales of the next generation. That means that the generation that does the best will be best supported with launch titles.

        Er, sure, but I'm not sure if a 10% lead is enough to make software developers comfortable enough to risk abandoning the other platform, especially given the shakeup that a generation switch will entail.

        I kind of like the them neck-and-neck; it basically means that most software gets ported to both, so users win whichever they buy, and can just choose whichever unit matches their living-room decor, or whose controller fits their hands best, or whose maker they deem to be slightly less evil...

  • Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by c_jonescc (528041) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:01PM (#36888782)
    We're SIX years into the 360, and FIVE for the PS3. Do we really need to constantly be analyzing which is selling more every quarter as though there's going to be a loser?

    Both companies have proven very successful, and have buyers of overlapping interest. Why should anyone care which one sold more in random month half a decade into the production cycle? Really, why does it matter?

    Both companies have survived this cycle. That's obvious. They'll both be throwing their hats into the next generation, which is a clear indicator that there are no losers between them. The only point I see is getting the fanboys all riled up.
    • The PS3 is going to an eleven year life at least. The PS2 is at eleven years right now and still selling well and somewhere in the 155+ million range in worldwide sales.

      When the PS2 dropped to $199 from $299 its sales reached into the 20-25 million a year range. The PS3 is just about to hit the same sweet spot where the PS2 exploded in sales.

      Sony has a massive 21 first party studio lineup that is cranking out a flood of PS3 exclusives that dwarf the combined exclusive output of Nintendo and Microsoft combin

      • Sony has a massive 21 first party studio lineup that is cranking out a flood of PS3 exclusives that dwarf the combined exclusive output of Nintendo and Microsoft combined.

        [Citation Needed]

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        The reason the PS3 is taking off? Piracy.

        Face it - the PS3 wasn't a pirated platform until the beginning of the year. All the people who had the skills were playing around with Cell Linux. Then Sony took away OtherOS and those people and pirates interests aligned again.

        Now that you can pirate easily on the PS3 (and who cares about PSN...) things start taking off. It's apparently a big worry that people are doing stuff like install codes and other crap. Which is unusual since the Wii and Xbox360 had piracy f

    • No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:35PM (#36889110)

      Unit sales matter when things are starting out. Don't sell enough units, and you can find yourself out of the running since then nobody wants to make any games for you (and if you don't have games, nobody buys it, and so on). However at this point, everyone has sold plenty. Unit sales aren't a big thing. Right now attach rate is what matters, meaning how many games per unit you sell. That's where the big money is in consoles, the licensing on games. So it doesn't matter if you sell slightly more units than your competitor, it matters if you sell (on average) more games per unit.

    • by Locutus (9039)
      what I would like to see is who's making a profit after all the upfront costs. I don't know about Sony but the last quarter for Microsoft showed their entertainment and devices division bringing in a wooping $32 million after 6 years of losing hundreds of millions to billions per quarter. And then there is the upfront development costs. Microsoft has Windows to fund its losses while I guess Sony had its PS2 to fund the PS3 costs. So I'd really like to see those kinds of comparisons. These numbers at least t
  • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:08PM (#36888844)

    In terms of hours played of games, or money made on games, or games sold separate from the console the Wii isn't winning. At all.

    A game console is the base of a broader platform. For sony that included other media, but selling consoles is done so you can sell *software*, and, if you're into that sort of thing, software people actually want to play. The Wii has had a handful of good titles. The PS3 and 360 have had a handful of good titles every year they've been out.

    In terms of which console is the better to have. At this point the PS3 seems to be getting better exclusives (god of war, uncharted infamous etc.) but I'm sure Halo 4 will have something to say about that soon enough.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:11PM (#36888870)

      The Wii won on net profit.

      That's... kind of important to some people.

      • by bloodhawk (813939)
        Not to the 3rd party game devs that DIDN'T win on profit on the WII
        • by Sir_Sri (199544)

          Nor, one could argue, did nintendo. That's they're problem. They made 10 bucks a pop on consoles and 30 or 40 bucks on software sales for those consoles. Which was great for a couple of years. And now... not so much.

          Sony and MS absorb any money they make back into companies with much more diverse portfolios (for better or worse) than nintendo. Sony and MS both make money on game sales, and a lot of it, but that's going to fund mobile phones, TV's, operating systems, and so on.

          It's a long tail/short tail

        • Are you including shovelware? Because there seemed to be a whole lot of that on the wii.

          "Everyone is buying the wii? Quick, make a game and slap it out there by next month! Doesn't matter what it is! With these numbers, people are going to be buying this game just because it is for the wii! Ninjas and gingerbread men you say'Ninjabread man'? [metacritic.com]? Holy hell! We don't even need a game with that, the title alone will sell!"

          The companies that did that and all those others deserved to lose money.

          Lo
          • by Lumpy (12016)

            Exactly. I have not bought a title for the Wii in 3 years. There has been NOTHING released for the Wii in the past 3 years that I have been even interested in buying.
            Nintendo seems to have just up and died.

      • by Dahamma (304068) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:30PM (#36889062)

        These days the real net profit for a game console to a company is based on the sales of hardware, software, and online services.

        The Wii may have made the most (or only) profit on the hardware, but at about $6 per unit all of their profits from the Wii console so far don't equal a year of Microsoft's profits from XBox Live.

        And as TFA says:

        "While most PS3s sold in are active, Wii's active installed base is far lower than cumulative sales. Nintendo's first party software largely targets Wii's hardcore sector, while third party software performance on Wii remains soft and the mainstream sector has largely abandoned Wii."

        So Nintendo is basically not making any more significant profit on the Wii, while Sony and Microsoft are starting to cash in big time.

        The Wii was like a sprinter in a marathon. Led for the first mile, but isn't even going to finish the race...

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      I'm going to use some BS numbers here, but they're roughly right.

      Let's say the PS3 and Xbox both sell at a $100 loss, and that Sony and Microsoft respectively make $10 on a new game sale. That means that they have to sell 10 games per PS3 to break even.

      Now let's say the Wii makes a $50 profit per console, and that Nintendo also gets a $10 cut from their games. In this sense, they have a 5 game lead just by selling a console. By the time a Wii is purchased, both Sony and Microsoft are 15 games behind. While

  • The PS3 is still $299 - the launch price of the PS2.

    The PS2 went on to sell 110+ million consoles when it had its price drop from $299 to $199.

    The PS3 is going to end up first in worldwide sales this gen.

  • by TheRecklessWanderer (929556) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:14PM (#36888906) Journal
    Sounds to me like someone at Sony is trying to make us forget how they screwed all their customers, with their lies about hackers getting customer data records. How could they possibly be gaining ground, unless maybe they are counting all the people they gave free months to that won't renew when it comes time to hand over their credit card number.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Narishma (822073)

      They are gaining ground because Sony's customers don't care about the stuff you mentioned. As long as they can buy their game, put the disc in and start playing they're happy. They don't care about DRM or Linux or anything else.

      Also, the PSN is free, you don't need to give them money to use it, unlike Xbox Live.

      • by ManTaboo (2027174)
        That is absoutely correct. Most PS3 owners all but forgot about all those troubles the second they were able to log onto the PSN again. Read any forum from during the time PSN was down. Very, very few people stated they were getting away from Sony (I would be courious to see how many of those actually did), the majority just cried 'I want my PSN back!'
  • by Spy Handler (822350) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:15PM (#36888914) Homepage Journal
    still buying Sony shit? Especially on Slashdot?

    Haven't they learned anything about how Sony treats its customers?
    • by Doc Ruby (173196)

      Why are people still buying Microsoft shit? Especially on Slashdot?

      Haven't they learned anything about how Microsoft treats its customers?

      Caught between the devil and the deep Blue SOD.

      • by Shadow99_1 (86250)

        At least for the moment the Xbox team holds a much better record than the Sony one... That may not be something that one can say for MS and Sony in all their massiveness, but in consoles the Xbox team does not have a huge security blunder not even a few months ago that shutdown their online network for weeks on end. They have not removed features from the device after making a big deal of them in their earlier hardware/software revisions...

        So sure on a larger scale neither are angels. I think we all know th

      • by dintech (998802)

        Well, that may be true but at least they treat their customers better than Sony.

        • by Doc Ruby (173196)

          Just because we're used to it doesn't mean MS's monopoly practices aren't treating us badly.

  • "PS3 has a good shot of overtaking Xbox 360"

    Wouldn't you say "The PS3 has a good shot of overtaking the Xbox 360?"

    • by nigelo (30096)

      No, it has a good shot *at* overtaking ... surely?

      I mean, shooting *at* a target, not shots *of* Tequila, and certainly not both at the same time, or I'd be out of there *like* a shot. Now I've shot my mouth off.

  • After owning all 3 at some point during this generation I've decided its my last console generation....I never thought I could be lured back to PC gaming after a long absence but the wii is just too casual, paying to play online with live is ridiculous considering how little I play multiplayer and Sony's issues up through their dismissal of their network security have made me think that I can really just do without consoles.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Try going backwards. An SNES or PSX will be a much better use of your time and money than a next gen console. Todays games aren't any more fun than the older ones, and the older ones have been around long enough so that it's known which ones are good. They're usually cheaper too, with a few exceptions.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        A SNES or PSX is just fucking frustrating today. Emulating SNES is pretty damned enjoyable, though.

        • by adolf (21054)

          This.

          NES and SNES stuff works just fine on my PSP. PSX stuff is more of a pain to make work, though. And I've still got my PSX hardware (and a bunch of games for it) but I don't ever find it necessary to plug it in. (Some of this is probably related to the fact that most of the PSX games that I've enjoyed have much improved PS3 versions which are just as much fun to play, and far prettier.)

          And I hate PC-based emulators. They've never felt right. It is inexplicable.

          I've had way more fun playing Devil's

        • by Hatta (162192)

          How so? TVs still have composite inputs, and there's a used game store in every small city I've been to. The hardware is pretty robust too. PSX lasers can fail, but it's cheap an easy to just pick up another unit.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Because when I was a kid with nothing to do and no schedule to do it on I could play games with no save or with miles-apart save points, but today I need something I can save state on because there's no save function, and sometimes not even a pause function.

  • "As for second place, as far as the hardcore market is concerned, I'd say PS3 is a strong contender for that position"

    As far as the hardcore market is concerned (at least the hardcore console market anyways) the PS3 is a strong contender for _first_ place, along with the 360.

    If you're going to restrict things down to the hardcore market the Wii hasn't clearly won anything. I own a Wii, i'm quite happy with it, but i'm not going to pretend it's leading the hardcore charge. The Wii has some great hardcore
  • The PS3 has been able to match the 360 closely even considering purchases spurred by the "Read Ring of Death", as well as those wanting to buy a Slim just to get away from all of that. Also the Kinect launch which was heavily marketed and designed to expand the 360's demographic significantly.
  • by jcgam69 (994690) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @05:30PM (#36889064)
    I mostly use the PS3 Slim because the Xbox cooling fan is too damned loud. The PS3 has always run whisper quiet. Both are clean and free of dust.
    • by cbhacking (979169)

      Have you used a 360 S? They're much quieter than the old Xbox 360 was, just as the PS3 S is quieter than the original PS3. In fact, this has been the biggest single commendation of the new 360 that I've heard - people exclaiming over how quiet it is.

    • by Malc (1751)

      My 60GB PS3 sounds like a jet engine. It does have builtin PS2 support. Great, because I use it mostly for the BBC iPlayer these days.

  • Why in the world does it matter if one console is selling better than another? Does owning the more-sold console contribute the value and effect of the console on gaming? Does it inherently attract more developers?

    Or is it one of those pseudo-team-contests where those who own Playstations feel superior to those who own Xboxes simply because Playstation is "winning" an unofficial competition in sales?

    "I like oranges. You like bananas. More oranges were sold last year than bananas... so ya. That means my frui

  • I know way more people with PS3s than XB360s. This was not true 5 years ago, but it is now and has been for years.

    Because of hardware failures, most XB360 owners I know have purchased the game console more than once (THREE times in one case).

    What's more interesting to me is how both platforms have become dynamic platforms with new OS features, instead of remaining static like the old PS2 and XBOX.

    Next thing you know, one of the console makers will 1up the other and start supporting Linux and homebrew. Oh wa

    • by Legion303 (97901)

      "I know way more people with PS3s than XB360s."

      Congratulations.

      As stated in the fucking article, 360 still outsells PS3 by about 5% worldwide, regardless of what your friends and family use.

  • PS3 may be catching up to XBox but millions of users spend tons of money every year not only buying video games but are also paying for XBox Live! and for credits on there. Basically, Microsoft worked out an online portal for video game addicts/saps who have demonstrated they are willing to pay every month to play. I wonder how that affects profitability?

    • by Mattwolf7 (633112)
      Probably compared to the competition being severely hacked and offline for a significant time period... Not at all...
  • I have a question for gamers who have tried both PS3 and Kinect, or PS3 and Wii.

    The PS3 is trying to be all things to all gamers. "It only does everything." How does the PlayStation Move compare with Kinect or the Wii?

    Is the Kinect actually better for sports games and such or is the experience about the same, and whichever game is better written is more fun?

    Is the Wii controller better/more accurate, or about the same? Are the Wii games better?

    steveha

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...