Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sony Businesses PlayStation (Games)

Why the PS3's February Sales May Be Misleading 127

Posted by Zonk from the look-at-the-big-picture dept.
1up's Luke Smith takes a look at February's NPD numbers, and has an observation to make about what they might mean for Sony. Though the company is almost certainly not selling as many PS3s as they'd like, the console still sold more units between November and February than a supply-constrained Xbox 360 did last year ... and despite a $200 more expensive pricetag. Though the console is certainly getting off to a slow start (and really needs great software, fast), it's still keeping pace with Microsoft's console from a year ago. "What does this mean for Sony? Considering the system's higher price point, if the platform can keep pace with the Xbox 360 through the first year (while the software matures), regardless of the installed base, the system has to be considered semi-successful. A concerning statistic between the two platforms' first January and February months is the drop-off in sales for those two months. From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units). That drop in sales, considering the units are available at retail, is cause for concern. Yet, despite trailing off by 25% more than its supply-constrained predecessor, the system does still cost $200 more."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why the PS3's February Sales May Be Misleading More

Why the PS3's February Sales May Be Misleading

Comments Filter:

  • My biased take (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday March 26, 2007 @05:11PM (#18494081) Homepage Journal

    I want to give my take on the issue. Analysts pull numbers out of their ass, I can do that too. I will say up front that I am heavily biased against the evil ones... er, I mean, Sony.

    Sony sold a whisker more units of the PS3 than Microsoft did of the Xbox 360 during the same timeframe. But they arguably should have sold piles more of them. The size of the gaming market is increasing, after all.

    I personally believe what happened is that the long wait ate up a lot of Sony customers. While people were waiting for the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 was eating up some of those people. Less of them will therefore be buying a PS3. I think the price factor might even be less significant than this issue, except in the UK, where the cost of the system is truly ludicrous.

    I believe the long wait also ate up Sony exclusives. Developers were seeing that Sony was going to be last to the party and market share was going to decline as a result. Making an exclusive makes sense when you're making it for the most popular platform in the generation. It doesn't when you aren't. The battle for this generation is still very much up in the air, of course, and Sony is simply not a sure thing in this round.

    Gamers follow the games. If the Final Fantasy franchise becomes nonexclusive (only niche final fantasy titles are available on other platforms) then Sony might as well bend over and kiss their ass goodbye.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dank zappingly ( 975064 )
      Not a bad point, but I don't know if the gaming market is increasing in Sony's favor. I would say that casual gaming (WiiDS) is increased, but the hardcore subset willing to pay 600 bucks is probably about the same. While 360 had more supply issues, it was also the only next-gen console on the market at the time. I used to have 2 Xboxes and I really loved the system, but Microsoft didn't support them too long. They came out with the 360 to beat Sony to the market. They released the "core" unit for 300
      • I am a 360 owner and while I am very happy with the system. There are some additional things they could done to make the system that little bit better. 1> Include WIFI I mean how much could that have really cost. 2> Allow plug-in codec's in the media center software. Yeah not very likely but would make the box oh so much better. 3> Allow user replaceable HDD, 20gig WTF were they thinking can you even buy those anymore. I don't know how HDMI would have cost so it was probably not worth the money

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by |Cozmo| ( 20603 )
          I doubt you'll be missing Gran Turismo once Forza 2 is unleashed upon the world. Yeah being able to add codecs would've been nice, however I found that if you use TVersity as your media sharing app on the PC it can realtime transcode any of your videos into the WMV format the 360 expects. This take a pretty hefty machine to do, but it works.
    • Like I care. I've been playing Motorstorm all weekend.
    • The way I see it is this. Microsoft only sold so few units because they had trouble getting enough of them on the shelves. People wanted to buy the 360 but couldn't. Sony on the other hand isn't selling out, and if you really want a PS3 it's not that hard to find them. You may have to go into a couple different shops, but it's not impossible. The Wii is also selling out, and nowhere to be found, but they are manufacturing tons more than sony is, and can't keep up with demand. So, from my point of view

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )

      I will say up front that I am heavily biased against the evil ones... er, I mean, Sony.


      If I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, and the choices are Microsoft and Sony....

      Man. That's a hard choice... I think I'd still lean towards Sony though. Microsoft is still actively becoming more evil, but I think Sony has peaked.
      • Oh sure, I think they're both evil bastards. Frankly I don't think Nintendo is all that benevolent either (I have not forgotten history) but they are definitely the company focusing most on games. I do my level best to not give money to Microsoft either and am purchasing neither Xbox 360 nor Playstation 3. For $600 you can get a PC with at least 512MB RAM, a DVD burner, and a 17" monitor. Just wait for a sale, which happens every weekend.
    • Or you could otherwise argue, that Sony sold more PS3's that Microsoft despite only having launched in 1/3rd of it's market. Now that it's going full guns in almost all regions (I believe there are still some minor regions not launched), any gaps between 360/WII who have launched globally long ago will start to shrink...

      • Of course they will shrink! People could not buy it, and now they can. If they sell one unit, that shrinks the gap. But unless Sony actually manages to surpass BOTH of the other players in this game, they will lose their momentum. The PS2 was successful in part because it was brilliantly executed (although I still think they were idiots for making the platform so difficult to develop for) and in part because of the sheer momentum gained from the PS1. If they lose that momentum now they may never get it back

        • I stopped reading your posts when you declared that 'every single X360 user was happy with a 20GB drive'. Shows what you know.

          • I stopped reading your posts when you declared that 'every single X360 user was happy with a 20GB drive'. Shows what you know.

            Uh, if you could show me precisely where I said that, I'd be interested. Because I never did.

            • I stopped reading your posts when you declared that 'every single X360 user was happy with a 20GB drive'. Shows what you know.
              Uh, if you could show me precisely where I said that, I'd be interested. Because I never did.
              Precisely here. [slashdot.org]
              • Congratulations! You are a fucking idiot. My comment clearly says 99%. 99% is, obviously, different from 100%. Go stick your smug stupidity up your ass sideways. It's an exaggeration of the truth, but it does not have remotely the same meaning. "Almost everyone" != "everyone". Just like there's no such thing as fresh frozen or virtually spotless.
                • Ha! You are a piece of work dude, that's the best you can do?! Thanks for proving my point, twice over. Now please die in a fire.

  • The Past... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by INeededALogin ( 771371 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @05:18PM (#18494171) Journal
    If anything can be shown from past console releases... once a single company has momentum(Atari, NES, SNES, PSX, GBA, PS2, DS) they typically own that generation. I think it was the Sega Genesis that somewhat challenged the SNES, but for the most part... everyone owned a SNES.

    With Nintendo on its way to passing the Xbox 360 and with the DS trouncing the PSP... does keeping pace with the XBox360 really mean a success. At the end of the day... they have still lost money. Keeping pace is nothing but par and hoping that the current leader(m$) makes a mistake. And forget about the supposed 10 year life cycle of the PS3. Think about the graphics cards from 5 years ago(just look at the ps2). 10 years is a long time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      I'll summarise the likely responses: you're just a Nintendo fan boy. But really, which ever company can do whatever. At the end of the day, I till think Sony is as evil as a non singular, inanimate thing can be. And I still like Mario Kart.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pluvius ( 734915 )
      Er... the Genesis had plenty of momentum before the SNES came out, as the Genesis was released a whole two years earlier. But then the SNES came out and that, combined with a bunch of screwups by Sega of Japan, caused that momentum to disappear. That generation happened in precisely the opposite manner as what you're suggesting.

      Rob

      • Re:The Past... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nomadic ( 141991 ) * <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Monday March 26, 2007 @07:05PM (#18495321) Homepage
        Er... the Genesis had plenty of momentum before the SNES came out, as the Genesis was released a whole two years earlier. But then the SNES came out and that, combined with a bunch of screwups by Sega of Japan, caused that momentum to disappear. That generation happened in precisely the opposite manner as what you're suggesting.

        That's exactly why Nintendo saw its domination of the console market get eaten away, generation by generation. They hate releasing new consoles, and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so by the rest of the market. Their refusal to consistently refine and upgrade their hardware has hurt them before, and I'm sure it will hurt them again--developers are already complaining that they're reaching the limits of what the Wii can do, which at this stage of the game is a little sad.
        • Their refusal to consistently refine and upgrade their hardware has hurt them before

          Nintendo? The company that made the Game Boy, then the Color, then the Advance, then the SP, then the Micro? What are you smoking?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by nomadic ( 141991 ) *
            Nintendo? The company that made the Game Boy, then the Color, then the Advance, then the SP, then the Micro? What are you smoking?

            Exactly.

            There was a nine (9) year gap between the introduction of the Game Boy and the Game Boy Color. And the upgrade was modest at best. Do you honestly maintain that nine years isn't a very long time in between generations in the game console market?

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by sesshomaru ( 173381 )
              Yes, but you said it hurt them. I watched, sadly, as the Gameboy crushed handheld after handheld. Two of which I owned (Atari Lynx and Neo Geo Pocket Color). The Gameboy destroyed its competition, despite its obvious inferiority, for years.

              I couldn't stand the Gameboy, and never would buy one (note, Gameboy Advance SP was worthwhile), but it won. Year after year, it won.

              People who say that the N64 was graphically inferior were just wrong. Nintendo's decision to go with cartridges again may have hur

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by nomadic ( 141991 ) *
                Yes, but you said it hurt them. I watched, sadly, as the Gameboy crushed handheld after handheld. Two of which I owned (Atari Lynx and Neo Geo Pocket Color). The Gameboy destroyed its competition, despite its obvious inferiority, for years.

                I think ultimately the Gameboy hurt Nintendo. It was a unique situation that made Nintendo kept trying to replicate. Like with the GameCube Nintendo decided they were going to make another long-lasting console. They even marketed to gamers, insisting to us that whil
                • I think ultimately the Gameboy hurt Nintendo.

                  I think it saved them. The N64 did quite poorly, the Gamecube even worse, but for what seemed like two years the top two bestselling games every single week were Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue. Monochrome games on an antique console that made Nintendo fabulous amounts of money while Sony were owning the home console market.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
              it's good for customers, good for developers, and good for manufacturers to have long lasting consoles and handhelds.

              the customers get a long useful lifetime out of their device and a large selection of titles, the developers get a long useful lifetime out of each title they make, and less time wasted learning new platforms. and manufacturers gain long useful lifetimes for their R&D work, and they gain significant savings as technology improves and lowers manufacturing costs.

              with short turnarounds cu

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by seebs ( 15766 )
          I see, so, every generation, mysterious market forces somehow cause Nintendo to release a new console exactly five years after their previous one?

          I dunno that I think anyone's dragging them kicking and screaming; it looks like they're on their own schedule.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hkmwbz ( 531650 )

          developers are already complaining that they're reaching the limits of what the Wii can do
          Really! And who are these developers? Certainly not anyone who has produced anything so far, considering that NO Wii game we know of (including those that are yet to come) have better graphics than PS2/GC games.
      • I believe you're missing the point. To the best of my knowledge, every system which became the market leader in a region was #1 for hardware within a year of its launch in said region. This includes the SNES, which surpassed the Genesis' total sales within a year, despite the Genesis' two year lead. This includes the PS2, which surpassed the Dreamcast. This includes the PS1, which was always in the lead, even though the N64 came reasonably close to passing it during the early days of N64 hype. However,
    • If anything can be shown from past console releases... once a single company has momentum(Atari, NES, SNES, PSX, GBA, PS2, DS) they typically own that generation. I think it was the Sega Genesis that somewhat challenged the SNES, but for the most part... everyone owned a SNES.

      Yeah, except that the Turbografx was released first, the Genesis second, and the SNES last (over two years later than the others) - exactly opposite of where the generation ended up.

  • Slash needs to RTFA! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Moryath ( 553296 )
    From January 2006 to February 2006 the Xbox 360 sales trailed off 36% (250K units down to 161k units). At the same point in its lifespan, Sony's PlayStation 3 experienced a drop-off of 48% (244K units down to 127K units).

    250,000 is bigger than 244,000.
    161,000 is bigger than 127,000.

    PS3 sold LESS units than the "supply-constrained Xbox360", and the PS3 isn't - as Sony so frequently tries to say - "supply-constrained."

    It's just a waste of money, and the sales figures are the proof.

    • Re:Slash needs to RTFA! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26, 2007 @06:05PM (#18494699)
      Why don't you read the article. The first four months of release, not just Jan/Feb, the PS3 sold 1.06 million units to xbox 360's 1.02 million units. Since 1.06 is greater than 1.02, it seems that Sony did in fact sell more units.

      Second paragraph of the article;

      "During its first four months at retail, Microsoft's Xbox 360 was supply constrained but still managed a sell-through in the U.S. of 1.02M consoles through February 2006, according to NPD figures. With suffocating supply constraints during the November launch period, Sony's PlayStation 3 still outsold the Xbox 360 during the same four-month launch window with 1.06M consoles sold through February 2007."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
        suffocating supply constraints? on the PS3?

        i think Sony's sales execs are confusing "suffocating supply constraints" with "choking on a dick"

        MS suffered the former with the release of the xbox 360, Sony suffered the latter

      • cluebat (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity AT sbcglobal DOT net> on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @12:47AM (#18497989) Homepage Journal
        The small, minor, tiny little problem Sony has is that no matter how well they're doing compared to the Xbox 360 last year, they started a year later. The PS3 has to sell as many units as the Xbox 360 did last year at this time plus as many units as the Xbox 360 is selling now. And if they do that for the rest of the year, then they will be merely tied with the Xbox 360 in November. Both will be far behind the Wii, if current sell-through rates continue.

        Unfortunately for Sony, they are only barely meeting last year's extremely supply-constrained Xbox 360 sales. And by failing to meet Xbox 360 sell-through figures, they are losing ground at a ridiculous pace.

        Sony doesn't get to hop into a time machine and pretend the last year's Xbox 360 sales didn't happen.

        Sony is 4 million units behind Microsoft, and that gap is growing every month.

  • Can we stop saying "price point" please? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can we stop saying "price point" please? If we were discussing whether to see the PS3 at $500 or $600 we would be talking price points. If we had a graph of actual demand at different prices, we would probably be talking price points.

    Comparing the current prices of the xbox and playstation is not economic theory, it is discussing the actual prices (or in some cases suggested prices) of the goods. But they do not represent price points.

    Using jargon like "Price point" does not make you sound smarter... hav

  • Dreamcast comparisons (Score:5, Informative)

    by metroid composite ( 710698 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @05:46PM (#18494487) Homepage Journal
    Yes, the PS3 was not as supply-contstrained in December, the key selling month, and so it is slightly ahead overall for the first four months.

    So what? The first four months of the 360 were disasterous due to supply. Microsoft haters delighted in pointing out that it was wayyy behind the first four Dreamcast months. As it happens, the PS3 is also well [vgcharts.org] behind [vgcharts.org] the first four months of the Dreamcast. (And it should be noted that it's behind in both hardware and software, whereas 360 was only behind on hardware).

  • The PS2 is a poor yardstick. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @06:10PM (#18494753)
    I find it very difficult to believe that the PS3 will match or surpass the PS2's performance.

    Simply put, the PS2 had a fantastic first full holiday season in 2001. Sure, it was competing against the Gamecube and the Xbox, but between those they had only two then-available killer apps: Halo and Super Smash Bros. Melee. The PS2 had a great library of titles: Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry and (depending on your market) Grand Theft Auto 3 and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 or Gran Turismo 2 and Onimusha. And these were just the ones that sold over a million worldwide by year's end 2001. At the time, all but one of those (THPS3) were exclusive to Sony's machine.

    Fast-forward to holiday season 2007. Final Fantasy XIII won't be here or in Europe in time for the holidays (remember, there's an 8-11 month lag after the initial Japanese release). Metal Gear Solid 4 will be here, but not in Europe (assuming standard delays). Devil May Cry isn't exclusive anymore and Grand Theft Auto IV comes out on multiple platforms at once. I'll be amazed if we get Gran Turismo before 2008's holiday season.

    Meanwhile, the Wii may continue dominating in the untested non-gamer/casual market demographics, and the 360 will have a strong library of games, not to mention the new Halo title.

    This does not mean doom for the PS3. They still have interesting titles. They still have Blu-Ray which with the release of Casino Royale is turning from an unnecessary add-on to something at least worth investigating further. This year, Sony has something they've never had before: real competition. The PS3 won't dominate the way the PS2 did in its second year. There will be a PS4. But they've burned a lot of marketshare as a result of their hubris, and their previous victory won't be repeated to the same extent this time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Physician ( 861339 )
      You cannot state that PS2's first full holiday season was 2001 when the system was released Oct. 26, 2000 so your whole comparison falls flat.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by The-Bus ( 138060 )
        No, the comparison does not fall flat. My choice of words could've been better. By "full holiday season" I meant that it had been out for the entire calendar year ("full-year" holiday season").

        Comparing Holiday 2001 to Holiday 2007 for PS2 and PS3 is still valid as they are the same time period after launch.
    • While I agree with the parent, isn't it also kind of sad we (speaking as the general populace) are waiting for rehashes or all of the same game franchises as 6 years ago as the "highlights" or "system seller" titles?
      That disheartens me a little...

      This post is slightly off topic I know, but I just found it interesting.
    • My Prediction for 2007:

      People will see the 360 and PS3 versions of upcoming multi-platform titles and wonder "hey, why does my Wii version not look like that"... Within weeks, ebay will be flooded with 2nd user Wii's
  • I thought that NPD's numbers were incomplete as they don't record sales from a number of stores, such as Walmart. Speaking of which, does Walmart even CARRY the PS3? At $600, it'd probably be one of the most expensive items in the store, wouldn't it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hadlock ( 143607 )
      Walmart sells about a dozen HDTVs over $1000 in my area. Probably that many $700+ HDTVs, too. Couple of $550 and $650 laptops... but it's been a while since I looked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jchenx ( 267053 )
      Walmart does carry the PS3 (and other expensive items, such as HDTVs), and yes, it isn't included in the NPD.

      That said, we have to work with what we've got. While incomplete, that doesn't mean the NPD numbers are completely useless. It just means you have to take it with a grain of salt. The industry and media have been using the numbers for quite some time now, and even though it's incomplete, they are generally a good sign of sales trends. Essentially, that means the numbers that are missing (big-box reta
    • NPD publishes "full market" figures; that is, numbers meant to represent 100% of retail sales. It's true they don't have data from all retailers. They model projections based on the 65% of the market they do get PoS data from with some level of correction from publisher feedback.

  • Another take (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrJynxx ( 902913 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @06:41PM (#18495073)
    I don't think comparing the two consoles's launch periods is really a good indication regarding how they compare to each other. This is due to the fact the 360 had no competition at the time and the games sucked! well up until GRAW 1 they were terrible.

    So now, the PS3 is suffering the same fate, TERRIBLE software. But whats different this time around is the fact the old exclusive titles are coming out on both the PS3 and the 360, so based on cost and other titles available a consumer may lean towards the 360 instead of the ps3.

    Its still way to early to predict the success of either console, I personally have both and am hoping the PS3 finds its market and they regain some of their exclusive titles back because so far the PS3 is just a 360 in disguise with respect to gaming.
  • IMO, the flagship games still really sell a console. E.g. Wii and Zelda. The PS3 has suffered because the most reknown [originally Nintendo but now] PS series, Final Fantasy, hasn't released their next incarnation yet. From the feedback I've read over numerous forums and comments from blogs, had Sony released the PS3 at the same time as FF they would've been onto something good. Now with that hanging in the balance they're treading on thin ice despite the 'home theatre' features.

    I live in Australia so insta

    • Several friends of mine are dedicated Sony fans
      A corporation is not something that should attract 'fans'. A football team might, or maybe a band or something, but a faceless corporation? Get some new friends dude!
    • IMO, the flagship games still really sell a console. E.g. Wii and Zelda.

      Zelda isn't what's selling Wii. It was once - on launch night I and all the other fanboys in the queue were after that game - but not now. What's driving the insatiable demand for Wii now is Wii Sports. Those fanboys have gone home and played Zelda, but their families and friends have had a go on Tennis or Bowling and they want that for themselves. It's them who are now buying up all the Wiis that Nintendo can produce - the Zelda fans

      • I beat Zelda awhile back and shelved it. Great game. I'll play through it again in a year or two. I play Wii Sports with my wife several times a week.

  • More expensive? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unconfused1 ( 173222 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:36PM (#18497555) Homepage
    I'm only going to compare the higher-end models, since that is what the article in question focuses on. As the article points out...the PS3 is $200 more. But the question is why? And what do you get for your $200? The answer is, quite a few things. I'm also going to assume that people who are griping about the PS3's price aren't going to upgrade the feature-set of their 360 to match it.

    40GB more hard disk, BluRay Disc, built-in WiFi, built-in card-reader, standard USB peripheral interface, free Internet multiplayer gaming, and interesting extras...like the new Folding@Home...or the upcoming PS3 Home.

    To purchase Microsoft's WiFi adapter and their HD-DVD drive...that sets you back $300 more...so now your Xbox360 didn't just cost $400. To reach up to what you get with your $600 PS3 purchase...you have to pay at least $700 on the Xbox360. And you haven't added your Xbox Live Gold ongoing subscription costs if you are into multiplayer online or other online content.

    There are poor games and brilliant games on both side of the 360 vs. PS3 'war'. Neither console had a lot of games out initially either. So, both of those are not really talking points. But the generalization that the Xbox360 is just flat out cheaper...well...that depends on what you want out of your system. If you don't want HD movies, free online play, built-in WiFi, or any of the other extras or untapped future potential of the PS3...then sure, the Xbox360 has some brilliant games out. But I know there are a lot of players like myself that want the extras that PS3 already provides, and we can pass up "Gears of War".
    • I'm only going to compare the higher-end models, since that is what the article in question focuses on. As the article points out...the PS3 is $200 more. But the question is why? And what do you get for your $200? The answer is, quite a few things. I'm also going to assume that people who are griping about the PS3's price aren't going to upgrade the feature-set of their 360 to match it.

      You're missing one factor. One console is made a well liked company that people trust to supply high quality consumer produ
      • I think that many would take issue with that comment about the 'well liked company' or the 'high quality consumer products'. I think that Sony has Microsoft beat on that ticket...though I'm not sure either are well liked. I'm not knocking the quality of the Xbox360 though. I think that Xbox and Xbox360 are some of their best successes in terms of a quality product, though the Xbox didn't actually turn a profit until a quarter before the 360 was released, and the 360 hasn't turned a profit yet at all (PS3

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      Nobody cares 300€ worth about the extra features of the PS3. BluRay is nice but by the time it's actually useful (as in, most people have the matching TV and enough movies are available in the format) it won't be worth more than 30€ for a cheap chinese player. WiFi bridges are dirt cheap. What the PS3 is bought to do is play PS3 games, same as how the 360 is bought to play 360 games. The 300€ you pay more for the PS3 before you can even start thinking about games would buy you about 5 games f
      • Well, actually, my argument was just that. That people like myself ARE indeed interested in the extras. I spent money on an HDTV, so I'm happy to see movie titles on BluRay. The are quite a bit better than the same thing on standard DVD. And considering the price of HD-DVD and BluRay standalone players...I'm happy that my PS3 plays the BluRay titles and the games as well.
      • Where do people keep getting this idea that nobody has an HD set?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Taulin ( 569009 )
      I agree that once you buy the extras it cost the same or more than a PS3. The difference is I don't need those extras, and I have the option. I still saved $200 (actually more because I got 20% off through Dell) and I have a next gen unit that has Halo, GoW, will get GTA4, and can even play SOTN. You make an interesting point, but your point plays in the 360's favor, not against it.
    • standard USB peripheral interface

      You haven't actually seen an XBox 360, have you?
  • 1. The author implies that by matching sales roughly by the XBox 360 at the same point in it's lifecycle, even though at the same point the 360 was "supply-constrained" and the PS3 is not, the console can be considered "semi-successful" because it is $200 more. First, I don't want to throw in with the "semi-successful" brand when dropping a couple hundred on a new system. Second, that's great for Sony's bottom line, but poison for third-party support. They don't care how much more Sony makes per unit shifte

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @03:32AM (#18498687)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • That's fine that it costs more, but sony is also LOSING more on each PS3 sold.

    If sony wants to retain it's console crown, they need to do something, and fast. The 360 has a very large number of titles coming out that have me (and many others) extremely excited...the PS3 only has couple titles that could have me (and many others)saying the same thing.

    • That's fine that it costs more, but sony is also LOSING more on each PS3 sold.

      If sony wants to retain it's console crown, they need to do something, and fast...

      They are. Seen the Australian and NZ pricing lately? AU$1000 or NZ$1200 (take your pick) for the consoles alone. No games. No HD connectors. No free HDTV. Compare that price to the US price (for a PS3 without software emulation I might add) and theres quite a bit of 'profit' made on each console sold. Also the EU/AU PS3 version also costs ~US$30 cheaper to produce than the US/JP version.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close