Support NeoGAF

[Infinite Justice]

403K PS3's sold according to Gamesindustry.biz

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-03-11-npd-kinect-bundles-outsold-move-by-5-1-in-february

posted long ago.

we need a mod to update the title and OP imo.

 

[Watchtower]

403K PS3's sold according to Gamesindustry.biz

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-03-11-npd-kinect-bundles-outsold-move-by-5-1-in-february

You're just a little late, but someone really should updated the OP.

EDIT: I'm late too ;p

 

[TheOddOne]

You don't think Fable's unique setting, and the nature of the Fable games have anything to do with it's success?

Coming back to the thread. Yes, I agree with you on Fable but don't agree with Killzone and Resistance being "bland", I think they have their own vibe and style that you barely see in other shooters.

 

[manueldelalas]

Last most on this as it is getting off topic. I'm not trying to say that Sony is "the" hardcore console. Only that their future seems more true to the "hardcore" gamer than the other consoles.

This came from others in this thread seeming enjoying the so called failure of KZ3 and Sony. I think Sony needed MS to beat them this gen, but the amount of Sony hate surprises me. Maybe I should put my money were my mouth is and actually buy a PS3 instead of always borrowing a friends.

OK jr, since you are new here (you are not that other Hoffman, right?), I'm going to explain to you what is a hardcore gamer.

Hardcore gamers are gamers that don't care about graphics (shocking, I know) nor sound quality (also shocking) or any of that stupid shit. Hardcore gamers are incredibly specific gamers that will only care for pixel perfect games. Also they only especialize mostly in one specific genre. There can't be a master of all game genres, it doesn't exist; some hardcore gamers will specialize in 2D shooters, others in RTSs, others in platformers, and so on. Also, they spend A FUCKING LOT of time playing games, like 25 hours a day (shocking!).

Popular games like Halo, Smash Bros, Mario Kart (same category, shocking), COD, Uncharted, GTA, etc etc, are not hardcore, those are mainstream. Gamers that play that games, are merely mainstream gamers, or hardlycore gamers. Anyone playing mainstream games and telling everyone he is hardcore is like Justin Beaver or Miley Cirus saying they are rockers. Posers.

You can practice a lot one of this mainstream games, and be an expert on it, and maybe you will be a great gamer in that specific game, but then you'll go to youtube and realize that any of those dudes uploading videos would kick your ass.

The reason why we gamers can play a lot of games, is because games today are easy as shit. Anyone can beat any game today, any of the mainstream ones at least. It's not a matter if you can beat it, it's a matter of how long it's going to take me.

Last point, you can't say PS3 is for hardcore gamers, if anything, that would be the PC. In consoles, games frequently dip below 30 fps, and the same games on PCs can mantain easily a framerate above 60fps (without expensive PCs, mind you (shocking!)). The resolution of most console games are sub 720p (shocking!), and on a PC you can reach much larger resolutions. FPSs on consoles suck because of playing with a gamepad, and you can plug a 360 or Sega Saturn GamePad on any PC, so PC wins that fight. Even the DS setup for shooters is hundreds of times better than a gamepad (shocking!).

So yeah, you are definitely wrong, poser!

(I'm not a hardcore gamer, I'm content with enjoying the few games a get to play, I once won a local (national) contest on Smash Bros Melee and that's about it for my hardcore history, and I'm sure I've played far more games than you, and I consider myself hardly hardlycore).

 

[highrider]

i don't think it's the dashboard or anything other than the 360 installed base. in north america, they buy the shit out of games. they gobbled up core games and they have a whole new demographic copping kinect and the more casual fare. marketing is a big part of it, but the xbox is still rooted in online shooters. it is utterly dominant, and i don't see that changing in north america.

the ps3 by contrast is the king of the slow burner. the uber franchises sell big out of the gate but most new ip's take time to reach the 2 million+ kind of numbers. uncharted 2 is of such a high quality that it pretty much was a mandatory purchase if you even had a passing interest in the genre. otherwise, ps3 gamers on the whole seem slower to pick up newer ip's.

one crucial omission that has also hurt the ps3 imo is a lack of a great online co-op game. resistance 2 is probably the best ( or at least most interesting ) that has come out on the ps3. a great co-op story game, or a game with a gears like horde mode.. or the ubiquitious nazi zombies. it sells because you want to play with friends of all skill levels. joe hardcore gamer can play with his more casual buddy and still have fun. killzone 3 having co-op splitscreen but no online co-op? competitive mp is great, but it is so much harder now with the juggernaut of cod. the mp crowd is so fickle.

meh, just my two cents. maybe xbox shooters are just inherently better. it just seems like m.s. understands what the north american market wants.

 

[Stripper13]

I think the question people should be asking right now is can any FPS stand up in the face of CoD's dominance?

Homefront? Crysis? Socom? Resistance?

Hell, is Reach still selling? I mean previous entries had impressive tails, but is CoD depressing MS own flagship franchise in any way?


EDIT: Lol sales-age threads move so fast. This comment was on point a bit ago... /sigh

I'd love to see the numbers, but I think Halo will continue to do aswell as it ever has into the future. Reach did what Halo 3 had done, in sales right? I'm on my iPhone and have no way to fact check right now - but I recall Reach doing Halo 3 numbers. On top of that, the online community remains strong, albeit smaller than COD and I remember a recent post in the Reach community thread from Urk or someone saying they were very happy with Reach's performance.

Again, no numbers at hand but I don't think MS/Bungie/343 are in anyway concerned about COD treading on Halo - the games are nothing alike bar the ability to shoot guns and sprint.

 

[Clear]

It would be counter-intuitive for MS to create a CoD killer. They don't want to kill CoD. CoD brings in millions of LIVE subscriptions, millions more in licensing fees and DLC, and MS doesn't have to foot the bill for dev costs. If anything, MS promotes core gaming revenue more than Nintendo or Sony (or the PC).

My point was a general observation about the reality of publishing a FPS no matter how high profile and irrespective of platform.

To be honest, I'm sure MS all would really care about is being #1. I mean business is business - it's just competition and right now CoD is the market leader on both PS3 and 360.

Everyone's an interested party and there aren't many ways to positively spin Killzone3 and Bulletstorm's numbers. These are high-profile contenders and their combined sales were beaten by a game that's been out for months.

Activision are worryingly dominant.

 

[Infinite Justice]

I'd love to see the numbers, but I think Halo will continue to do aswell as it ever has into the future. Reach did what Halo 3 had done, in sales right? I'm on my iPhone and have no way to fact check right now - but I recall Reach doing Halo 3 numbers. On top of that, the online community remains strong, albeit smaller than COD and I remember a recent post in the Reach community thread from Urk or someone saying they were very happy with Reach's performance.

Again, no numbers at hand but I don't think MS/Bungie/343 are in anyway concerned about COD treading on Halo - the games are nothing alike bar the ability to shoot guns and sprint.

both did the exact amount in their first NPD month (3.3 million)

 

[see5harp]

wall of text

????

 

[JaxJag]

Wasn't Halo the 3rd best selling game in North America in 2010?

I guess that's your two top shooters right there, but even then Halo doesn't do close to CoD numbers.

 

[truly101]

PS3 userbase is much bigger than it was back in 2009. If KZ3 was to maintain KZ2's attach ratio (or not much lower), it should have higher sales. It seems newer owners were much more interested in checking out Blops though.

But its not like KZ2 was a runaway smash, a lot of people thought the interface was a bit clunky feeling and many people didn't quite like the characters or universe. Sony 1st party games seldom chart in the top 10 outside of maybe GOW and GT, but they seem to be consistent sellers through the life of the system. That seemed to be the plan in the PS1 and PS2 days, seems to hold true now. Even if KZ3 sells only half of what it did in February this month, its still on its way to 500K copies sold in 3 months time in the US alone.
Everyone here seems to be employing arbitrary metrics on what they think is successful or not, or they are comparing this to COD or Halo as the standard bearers. There seem to be quite a few games that don't sell to that degree and are still successful.

BTW does anyone know what the LTD sales are now for FFXIII in NA?

 

[manueldelalas]

????

You're welcome.

 

[Watchtower]

i don't think it's the dashboard or anything other than the 360 installed base. in north america, they buy the shit out of games. they gobbled up core games and they have a whole new demographic copping kinect and the more casual fare. marketing is a big part of it, but the xbox is still rooted in online shooters. it is utterly dominant, and i don't see that changing in north america.

the ps3 by contrast is the king of the slow burner. the uber franchises sell big out of the gate but most new ip's take time to reach the 2 million+ kind of numbers. uncharted 2 is of such a high quality that it pretty much was a mandatory purchase if you even had a passing interest in the genre. otherwise, ps3 gamers on the whole seem slower to pick up newer ip's.

one crucial omission that has also hurt the ps3 imo is a lack of a great online co-op game. resistance 2 is probably the best ( or at least most interesting ) that has come out on the ps3. a great co-op story game, or a game with a gears like horde mode.. or the ubiquitious nazi zombies. it sells because you want to play with friends of all skill levels. joe hardcore gamer can play with his more casual buddy and still have fun. killzone 3 having co-op splitscreen but no online co-op? competitive mp is great, but it is so much harder now with the juggernaut of cod. the mp crowd is so fickle.

meh, just my two cents. maybe xbox shooters are just inherently better. it just seems like m.s. understands what the north american market wants.

I really thought we were past explaining why the 360 sells better than the PS3 like back in 2006 when we realized games and price still mattered....like always.

Wasn't it the simple and obvious same reason that always turns out to be the case in every generation, and it just came down to the fact that when it's all said and done both platforms are freaking identical in technology but the 360 was the first to grab the lead in third party development and offer basically the same thing for a cheaper price?

To boil it down to the most simplest statment: the 360 had the better games/price value over the course of the generation. Period.

I mean I thought that was established a long time ago. And if you are talking about why that's still the case now....well once you establish yourself as that console you just kind of ride that momentum, and even though the PS3 caught up as far as software....the price still didn't soon enough. Not counting casual department(which the 360 has apparently yet again an even greater advantage), it's still offering the same thing but for a more expensive price.

 

[duk]

Man MS executed their strategy very well this gen so far. Their biggest fault was RROD fiasco and yet Sony was not able to capitalize. Now with Kinect selling like hotcakes, it's a one-two-three (core-casual-online) combo that Sony cannot hope to match this gen.

 

[MMaRsu]

black ops IS that good

It really isn't. A turd of game.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Man MS executed their strategy very well this gen so far. Their biggest fault was RROD fiasco and yet Sony was not able to capitalize. Now with Kinect selling like hotcakes, it's a one-two-three (core-casual-online) combo that Sony cannot hope to match this gen.

I chalk a lot of the PS3's failure to capitalize on MS's mistakes as the awful price specter that hung over it. Think of it this way; Xbox hardware launch was arguably the worst in history in terms of build quality, and RROD was a plague upon the land for what... two solid years? And in all that time, no significant number of potential customers said "yuck... these things are built like crap... I'm buying the other guy". If they bought an HD game console, most still chose Xbox.

This was partially due to software, yes; Xbox is the Halo machine, and Sony suffered greatly IMHO for a nearly complete failure to get flagship Playstation brand names out on the PS3. No Gran Turismo, etc. But I do think that is how terribly the PS3's steep price impacted its sales. The other guy's console could be made to explode and take out the family dog, and PS3 still didn't benefit.

 

[flyinpiranha]

OK jr, since you are new here (you are not that other Hoffman, right?), I'm going to explain to you what is a hardcore gamer.

Hardcore gamers are gamers that don't care about graphics (shocking, I know) nor sound quality (also shocking) or any of that stupid shit. Hardcore gamers are incredibly specific gamers that will only care for pixel perfect games. Also they only especialize mostly in one specific genre. There can't be a master of all game genres, it doesn't exist; some hardcore gamers will specialize in 2D shooters, others in RTSs, others in platformers, and so on. Also, they spend A FUCKING LOT of time playing games, like 25 hours a day (shocking!).

Popular games like Halo, Smash Bros, Mario Kart (same category, shocking), COD, Uncharted, GTA, etc etc, are not hardcore, those are mainstream. Gamers that play that games, are merely mainstream gamers, or hardlycore gamers. Anyone playing mainstream games and telling everyone he is hardcore is like Justin Beaver or Miley Cirus saying they are rockers. Posers.

You can practice a lot one of this mainstream games, and be an expert on it, and maybe you will be a great gamer in that specific game, but then you'll go to youtube and realize that any of those dudes uploading videos would kick your ass.

The reason why we gamers can play a lot of games, is because games today are easy as shit. Anyone can beat any game today, any of the mainstream ones at least. It's not a matter if you can beat it, it's a matter of how long it's going to take me.

Last point, you can't say PS3 is for hardcore gamers, if anything, that would be the PC. In consoles, games frequently dip below 30 fps, and the same games on PCs can mantain easily a framerate above 60fps (without expensive PCs, mind you (shocking!)). The resolution of most console games are sub 720p (shocking!), and on a PC you can reach much larger resolutions. FPSs on consoles suck because of playing with a gamepad, and you can plug a 360 or Sega Saturn GamePad on any PC, so PC wins that fight. Even the DS setup for shooters is hundreds of times better than a gamepad (shocking!).

So yeah, you are definitely wrong, poser!

(I'm not a hardcore gamer, I'm content with enjoying the few games a get to play, I once won a local (national) contest on Smash Bros Melee and that's about it for my hardcore history, and I'm sure I've played far more games than you, and I consider myself hardly hardlycore).

Haha, that was great. I have no idea what you're trying to say but it was funny.

 

[szaromir]

But its not like KZ2 was a runaway smash, a lot of people thought the interface was a bit clunky feeling and many people didn't quite like the characters or universe. Sony 1st party games seldom chart in the top 10 outside of maybe GOW and GT, but they seem to be consistent sellers through the life of the system. That seemed to be the plan in the PS1 and PS2 days, seems to hold true now.

I have yet to see any proof of that, ie. that their games (en masse) have higher month 1/lifetime sales ratio than Microsoft, Nintendo or 3rd party publishers.

 

[highrider]

I really thought we were past explaining why the 360 sells better than the PS3 like back in 2006 when we realized games and price still mattered....like always.

Wasn't it the simple and obvious same reason that always turns out to be the case in every generation, and it just came down to the fact that when it's all said and done both platforms are freaking identical in technology but the 360 was the first to grab the lead in third party development and offer basically the same thing for a cheaper price?

To boil it down to the most simplest statment: the 360 had the better games/price value over the course of the generation. Period.

I mean I thought that was established a long time ago. And if you are talking about why that's still the case now....well once you establish yourself as that console you just kind of ride that momentum, and even though the PS3 caught up as far as software....the price still didn't soon enough. Not counting casual department(which the 360 has apparently yet again an even greater advantage), it's still offering the same thing but for a more expensive price.

i buy that up until the last year and a half or two years. i don't think the 360 actually has better games over the course of the generation. the ps3 offers a far more diverse first party and blah blah.

i do think the 360 has better online shooters by a pretty large margin, so if that is what we are talking about that then i agree. as far as price, i just don't think 50 or even 100 dollars difference in a console price is an issue for the gamers buying software on the regular. again, i'm talking about right now, killzone 3 specifically.

 

[Moz La Punk]

OK jr, since you are new here (you are not that other Hoffman, right?), I'm going to explain to you what is a hardcore gamer.

Hardcore gamers are gamers that don't care about graphics (shocking, I know) nor sound quality (also shocking) or any of that stupid shit. Hardcore gamers are incredibly specific gamers that will only care for pixel perfect games. Also they only especialize mostly in one specific genre. There can't be a master of all game genres, it doesn't exist; some hardcore gamers will specialize in 2D shooters, others in RTSs, others in platformers, and so on. Also, they spend A FUCKING LOT of time playing games, like 25 hours a day (shocking!).

Popular games like Halo, Smash Bros, Mario Kart (same category, shocking), COD, Uncharted, GTA, etc etc, are not hardcore, those are mainstream. Gamers that play that games, are merely mainstream gamers, or hardlycore gamers. Anyone playing mainstream games and telling everyone he is hardcore is like Justin Beaver or Miley Cirus saying they are rockers. Posers.

You can practice a lot one of this mainstream games, and be an expert on it, and maybe you will be a great gamer in that specific game, but then you'll go to youtube and realize that any of those dudes uploading videos would kick your ass.

The reason why we gamers can play a lot of games, is because games today are easy as shit. Anyone can beat any game today, any of the mainstream ones at least. It's not a matter if you can beat it, it's a matter of how long it's going to take me.

Last point, you can't say PS3 is for hardcore gamers, if anything, that would be the PC. In consoles, games frequently dip below 30 fps, and the same games on PCs can mantain easily a framerate above 60fps (without expensive PCs, mind you (shocking!)). The resolution of most console games are sub 720p (shocking!), and on a PC you can reach much larger resolutions. FPSs on consoles suck because of playing with a gamepad, and you can plug a 360 or Sega Saturn GamePad on any PC, so PC wins that fight. Even the DS setup for shooters is hundreds of times better than a gamepad (shocking!).

So yeah, you are definitely wrong, poser!

(I'm not a hardcore gamer, I'm content with enjoying the few games a get to play, I once won a local (national) contest on Smash Bros Melee and that's about it for my hardcore history, and I'm sure I've played far more games than you, and I consider myself hardly hardlycore).

I just had to quote this. I'm sorry.... what?

 

[Watchtower]

OK jr, since you are new here (you are not that other Hoffman, right?), I'm going to explain to you what is a hardcore gamer.

Hardcore gamers are gamers that don't care about graphics (shocking, I know) nor sound quality (also shocking) or any of that stupid shit. Hardcore gamers are incredibly specific gamers that will only care for pixel perfect games. Also they only especialize mostly in one specific genre. There can't be a master of all game genres, it doesn't exist; some hardcore gamers will specialize in 2D shooters, others in RTSs, others in platformers, and so on. Also, they spend A FUCKING LOT of time playing games, like 25 hours a day (shocking!).

Popular games like Halo, Smash Bros, Mario Kart (same category, shocking), COD, Uncharted, GTA, etc etc, are not hardcore, those are mainstream. Gamers that play that games, are merely mainstream gamers, or hardlycore gamers. Anyone playing mainstream games and telling everyone he is hardcore is like Justin Beaver or Miley Cirus saying they are rockers. Posers.

You can practice a lot one of this mainstream games, and be an expert on it, and maybe you will be a great gamer in that specific game, but then you'll go to youtube and realize that any of those dudes uploading videos would kick your ass.

The reason why we gamers can play a lot of games, is because games today are easy as shit. Anyone can beat any game today, any of the mainstream ones at least. It's not a matter if you can beat it, it's a matter of how long it's going to take me.

Last point, you can't say PS3 is for hardcore gamers, if anything, that would be the PC. In consoles, games frequently dip below 30 fps, and the same games on PCs can mantain easily a framerate above 60fps (without expensive PCs, mind you (shocking!)). The resolution of most console games are sub 720p (shocking!), and on a PC you can reach much larger resolutions. FPSs on consoles suck because of playing with a gamepad, and you can plug a 360 or Sega Saturn GamePad on any PC, so PC wins that fight. Even the DS setup for shooters is hundreds of times better than a gamepad (shocking!).

So yeah, you are definitely wrong, poser!

(I'm not a hardcore gamer, I'm content with enjoying the few games a get to play, I once won a local (national) contest on Smash Bros Melee and that's about it for my hardcore history, and I'm sure I've played far more games than you, and I consider myself hardly hardlycore).

I agree with most of it except that part. And anyone that owned the original Xbox, and had a friend in a local videogame shop that would close the shop down early for Saturday nights all-nighters to plug together 5 Xbox's and 5 TV's in order to play Halo before Xbox Live came around will slap you silly for even making such a statement! BLASPHEMY!

Go back and look at all the original Halo jump threads just here on GAF before saying Halo was not a hardcore gamer's title. This game was a hardcore FPS gamer's dream shooter for years after launch! Same with Halo 2.

Just because it became popular it doesn't mean it wasn't hardcore even if it also happens to fall in the "mainstream" category. As a matter of fact, most "mainstream" games became mainstream because they typically had the gameplay mechanics hardcore gamers coveted but then got injected with money and graphics to appeal to the rest of the crowd so they can see what it's all about.

So forgive me, but if you can't remember that, you yourself shouldn't be calling anyone "junior". Junior!

 

[Zen]

hardcore is more about your dedication to the hobby, not how anal retentive and obsessive compulsive you are. Your PC thing about resolutions and framerates is a laugh, and this is coming from someone with a pretty good PC.

 

[MMaRsu]

OK jr, since you are new here (you are not that other Hoffman, right?), I'm going to explain to you what is a hardcore gamer.

Hardcore gamers are gamers that don't care about graphics (shocking, I know) nor sound quality (also shocking) or any of that stupid shit. Hardcore gamers are incredibly specific gamers that will only care for pixel perfect games. Also they only especialize mostly in one specific genre. There can't be a master of all game genres, it doesn't exist; some hardcore gamers will specialize in 2D shooters, others in RTSs, others in platformers, and so on. Also, they spend A FUCKING LOT of time playing games, like 25 hours a day (shocking!).

Popular games like Halo, Smash Bros, Mario Kart (same category, shocking), COD, Uncharted, GTA, etc etc, are not hardcore, those are mainstream. Gamers that play that games, are merely mainstream gamers, or hardlycore gamers. Anyone playing mainstream games and telling everyone he is hardcore is like Justin Beaver or Miley Cirus saying they are rockers. Posers.

You can practice a lot one of this mainstream games, and be an expert on it, and maybe you will be a great gamer in that specific game, but then you'll go to youtube and realize that any of those dudes uploading videos would kick your ass.

The reason why we gamers can play a lot of games, is because games today are easy as shit. Anyone can beat any game today, any of the mainstream ones at least. It's not a matter if you can beat it, it's a matter of how long it's going to take me.

Last point, you can't say PS3 is for hardcore gamers, if anything, that would be the PC. In consoles, games frequently dip below 30 fps, and the same games on PCs can mantain easily a framerate above 60fps (without expensive PCs, mind you (shocking!)). The resolution of most console games are sub 720p (shocking!), and on a PC you can reach much larger resolutions. FPSs on consoles suck because of playing with a gamepad, and you can plug a 360 or Sega Saturn GamePad on any PC, so PC wins that fight. Even the DS setup for shooters is hundreds of times better than a gamepad (shocking!).

So yeah, you are definitely wrong, poser!

(I'm not a hardcore gamer, I'm content with enjoying the few games a get to play, I once won a local (national) contest on Smash Bros Melee and that's about it for my hardcore history, and I'm sure I've played far more games than you, and I consider myself hardly hardlycore).

This is one HILARIOUS fucking post sir.

 

[highrider]

I just had to quote this. I'm sorry.... what?

the user of the word poser without a hint of sarcasm. i like it!

 

[duk]

I chalk a lot of the PS3's failure to capitalize on MS's mistakes as the awful price specter that hung over it. Think of it this way; Xbox hardware launch was arguably the worst in history in terms of build quality, and RROD was a plague upon the land for what... two solid years? And in all that time, no significant number of potential customers said "yuck... these things are built like crap... I'm buying the other guy". If they bought an HD game console, most still chose Xbox.

This was partially due to software, yes; Xbox is the Halo machine, and Sony suffered greatly IMHO for a nearly complete failure to get flagship Playstation brand names out on the PS3. No Gran Turismo, etc. But I do think that is how terribly the PS3's steep price impacted its sales. The other guy's console could be made to explode and take out the family dog, and PS3 still didn't benefit.

Agree, add to Sony's PR (LOL) while trying to find the identity of the PS3 for the first 2-3 years of its life. On top, there was the rediculous price points of entry.

 

[flyinpiranha]

the user of the word poser without a hint of sarcasm. i like it!

(shocking!)

 

[Leon S. Kennedy]

How is Killzone bland? It has cutting edge visual design. Even gameplay wise it is pretty great. KZ3 just suffers from not being finished before release. It needed another 6 months at least.

I just finished the KZ3 single player and it was generic and monotonous. It screamed bland - game design and story done from a boiler plate- for the entire game. I haven't played mutl-player yet, so I may change my mind.

 

[highrider]

(shocking!)

oh come on. one has to expect a little ribbing on a post like that.

 

[truly101]

I have yet to see any proof of that, ie. that their games (en masse) have higher month 1/lifetime sales ratio than Microsoft, Nintendo or 3rd party publishers.

I wasn't comparing their 1st party titles to those of Nintendo's or MS's that was nowhere in my statement. I did say that most Sony 1st party titles over their past 3 consoles seem to sell fairly well during the lifetime of the console. You can look at the LTD sales for Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, Uncharted 1, any number of their 1st party games and see that for your self. None of those games cracked the top 10 NPDs

 

[[Nintex]]

MS has a clear vision going into the future. Blockbuster AAA titles for the core. Kinect, the new user interface for the casuals. Third parties are able to fill in the gaps and the Xbox Live Community keeps the userbase active and tied to their 360's. MS only has the Xbox 360 to support so for them it's easy to maintain momentum. The Xbox 360 has a hit an upward spiral ever since the release of the Slim and it's not slowing down anytime soon. (no temporary sales spike like the Wii/PS3 pricedrops).

Nintendo has to divide their resources between the DS, Wii and 3DS. It shows in the software line-up and all they can apparently do to fix the home console situation in the long run is launch a new console. It's the only way to rebuild their online strategy and get third parties to develop games for them.

I'm starting to believe the rumors that the PS4 has been put aside for now so Sony can focus on the NGP. I still think the upcoming handheld battle royale will allow MS to increase their influence over the console market even further. I still can't see western developers jump for joy because of new handhelds. Nintendo has little development support in the US/EU to focus on Wii while Japan is occupied with the 3DS. It's at times like these when developers like Silicon Knights, Factor 5, NST and Retro Studios could've made a difference in regards to the Wii line-up. Sony has to spend even more resources on the handheld market with their high-end NGP. I don't think they can keep up the current rate of first party releases on PS3 and develop NGP games at the same time.

 

[DevilWillcry]

Not bad numbers for the PS3, but I think it's time for Sony to do a price drop around the Summer for Infamous 2 if they want to shake things up a bit in NA.

 

[Watchtower]

MS has a clear vision going into the future. Blockbuster AAA titles for the core. Kinect, the new user interface for the casuals. Third parties are able to fill in the gaps and the Xbox Live Community keeps the userbase active and tied to their 360's. MS only has the Xbox 360 to support so for them it's easy to maintain momentum. The Xbox 360 has a hit an upward spiral ever since the release of the Slim and it's not slowing down anytime soon. (no temporary sales spike like the Wii/PS3 pricedrops).

Nintendo has to divide their resources between the DS, Wii and 3DS. It shows in the software line-up and all they can apparently do to fix the home console situation in the long run is launch a new console. It's the only way to rebuild their online strategy and get third parties to develop games for them.

I'm starting to believe the rumors that the PS4 has been put aside for now so Sony can focus on the NGP. I still think the upcoming handheld battle royale will allow MS to increase their influence over the console market even further. I still can't see western developers jump for joy because of new handhelds. Nintendo has little development support in the US/EU to focus on Wii while Japan is occupied with the 3DS. It's at times like these when developers like Silicon Knights, Factor 5, NST and Retro Studios could've made a difference in regards to the Wii line-up. Sony has to spend even more resources on the handheld market with their high-end NGP. I don't think they can keep up the current rate of first party releases on PS3 and develop NGP games at the same time.

I honestly don't think they can keep up their current rate, period, with anything. They keep following with everything they have introduced ever since the mid-PS2 era.

They got beat with the introduction of the hard drive, online gaming, next generation, price drops, motion controls, and now next-gen handheld. The last thing they tried as a leader and in charge of was Blue-Ray and that backfired. They have stopped innovating and leading the market and are simply following in the footsteps of others.

This is a road map that eventually leads to bad places. At some point you just have to stop, re-boot and completely change directions, like Nintendo did. They will continue to lose market share at this rate in the long run.

 

[szaromir]

I wasn't comparing their 1st party titles to those of Nintendo's or MS's that was nowhere in my statement. I did say that most Sony 1st party titles over their past 3 consoles seem to sell fairly well during the lifetime of the console. You can look at the LTD sales for Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, Uncharted 1, any number of their 1st party games and see that for your self. None of those games cracked the top 10 NPDs

By stating that is Sony's strategy/goal you indirectly implied that it has to be better ratio than that of competition, otherwise you wouldn't mention it. Since you refused to provide any data, I can safely assume it's an urban legend made to look Sony better in the sales threads.

 

[flyinpiranha]

oh come on. one has to expect a little ribbing on a post like that.

Ha, I know ... It's something he used in that post like 3 or 4 times. It's now my new meme.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I'm starting to believe the rumors that the PS4 has been put aside for now so Sony can focus on the NGP.

it wasn't a rumour, it was a poor translation.

 

[highrider]

Ha, I know ... It's something he used in that post like 3 or 4 times. It's now my new meme.

* gives pound *

 

[m3k]

wow npd's are still interesting

 

[DevilWillcry]

I do think the 360 has better online shooters by a pretty large margin, so if that is what we are talking about that then i agree. as far as price, i just don't think 50 or even 100 dollars difference in a console price is an issue for the gamers buying software on the regular. again, i'm talking about right now, killzone 3 specifically.

I dunno man, I wouldn't necessarily say that the 360 has better online shooters, but rather more popular well-marketed shooters. Sony's shooter offerings are pretty much neck and neck in terms of online quality when you pit Resistance and Killzone against Gears and Halo. However, Sony doesn't market them quite as well as MS does. Then you have the mainstay online shooter of the PS2 (SOCOM) finally getting a sequel on the PS3 within the next month. No, I'd say the main obstacle the PS3 is facing is price at the moment, it's long overdue for a price drop and if Sony is smart they will knock a few dollars off the system this summer to boost hardware and generate interest in franchises like SOCOM, Motorstorm, and InFamous before the onslaught of holiday releases (Uncharted, Resistance, COD, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, etc.) hit. From what I've seen at retail the traditional gamers are showing a ton of interest in the PS3 but it's just a little bit too expensive still.

 

[timetokill]

How is Killzone bland?

"Killzone." Hell, it even sounds bland. Might as well call it "Generic VISCERAL YEA bro shooter."

Guerilla has done some great things with the games but the Killzones have always been second fiddle at best to the Halos and CoDs of the world.

 

[Basileus777]

After Resistance 2, associating that franchise with "quality," let alone calling it neck and neck with Halo and Gears is absurd.

Seriously, the Resistance and Killzone franchises have nothing on Halo and Gears in terms of marketability and sales potential. It has nothing to do with hardware price.

 

[jvm]

Does anyone have their own hardware LTDs available for comparison? I've got 26.34 million for Xbox 360 and I've got another (legitimate) source saying 27 million (no extra digits).

 

[Road]

Does anyone have their own hardware LTDs available for comparison? I've got 26.34 million for Xbox 360 and I've got another (legitimate) source saying 27 million (no extra digits).

I have 26.36.

LTD corrections are not unheard of.

 

[truly101]

By stating that is Sony's strategy/goal you indirectly implied that it has to be better ratio than that of competition, otherwise you wouldn't mention it. Since you refused to provide any data, I can safely assume it's an urban legend made to look Sony better in the sales threads.

Uh, no you took it as such, your fault not mine. I simply stated that a lot of Sony 1st party games tend to sell well over the life of the console and this had been the case for their PS1 games, PS2 games and some of their PS3 games. You can find the data pretty easily if you want, or you can assume whatever you want, whatever makes you feel better I guess.

 

[Psychotext]

Does anyone have their own hardware LTDs available for comparison? I've got 26.34 million for Xbox 360 and I've got another (legitimate) source saying 27 million (no extra digits).

I've got 26.31 but I specifically removed any extra decimal places from my spreadsheet when we stopped getting them with any regularity (so 565.6k would become 565k).

27 is a big step up from there.

 

[jvm]

I have 26.36.

LTD corrections are not unheard of.

Yep, I just wanted to make sure I didn't have a gigantic typographical error in my own data. Thanks, Road. The delta could be around 0.15 million or 150K ... I'll ask NPD for a real LTD next week sometime.

Edit: Thanks, Psychotext, for adding another confirmation.

 

[DevilWillcry]

After Resistance 2, associating that franchise with "quality," let alone calling it neck and neck with Halo and Gears is absurd.

Seriously, the Resistance and Killzone franchises have nothing on Halo and Gears in terms of marketability and sales potential. It has nothing to do with hardware price.

Oh please Resistance 2's online was fantastic, it was the campaign people had issues with, but even with that it still reviewed in the same tier as any Halo or Gears according to metacritic (don't like them? Too bad it's the best scale for reception of quality we have ). I'm not talking about "marketability", I was talking about quality as the original post I quoted mentioned and Resistance and Killzone both offer online experiences that are on a similar scale to Gears and Halo. They simply don't sell as much because they aren't marketed as well, but that's a completely different argument from the one I was talking about.

 

[Four_Chamber]

Kinect steamrolling Move again is interesting. I wonder how much patience Sony will have with Move in the long run. 5:1 is an ugly, ugly margin.

And please stop saying KZ3 didn't get advertising- I've seen that dumb KZ3 commercial with the guy dropping his coke too many times and I barely watch TV anymore. It's not the quantity of their advertising that's the problem. KZ3 just doesn't offer much to differentiate it from the other FPS's other than being a mess that could have used a longer beta.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to E3. I've been tempted to get Kinect but need some more software to make the plunge officially.

Also, awesome to see VC being rewarded for 2K11. I can't wait to see NBA Live try to crawl back from the dead against this dynasty.

 

[Man]

Kinect steamrolling Move again is interesting. I wonder how much patience Sony will have with Move in the long run.

The hardware itself is profitable.
You don't need to make new games from the ground up for it alone.
Great and practical tech, most likely PS4 main interface.

 

[mujun]

PSN is getting some nice games as well, some good ones already came out this year (About a Blob, PixelJunk Shooter 2, Back to the Future, and next week Slam Bolt Scrappers)

XBLA is smoking PSN just as much as the PS3 is smoking the 360 with it's $60 exclusives in 2011.

Sure retail exclusives carry more weight but it's a funny trend that most of the people who laud the PS3's exclusives at retail won't admit that XBLA's lineup is clearly superior.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

I dunno man, I wouldn't necessarily say that the 360 has better online shooters, but rather more popular well-marketed shooters. Sony's shooter offerings are pretty much neck and neck in terms of online quality when you pit Resistance and Killzone against Gears and Halo. However, Sony doesn't market them quite as well as MS does. Then you have the mainstay online shooter of the PS2 (SOCOM) finally getting a sequel on the PS3 within the next month. No, I'd say the main obstacle the PS3 is facing is price at the moment, it's long overdue for a price drop and if Sony is smart they will knock a few dollars off the system this summer to boost hardware and generate interest in franchises like SOCOM, Motorstorm, and InFamous before the onslaught of holiday releases (Uncharted, Resistance, COD, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, etc.) hit. From what I've seen at retail the traditional gamers are showing a ton of interest in the PS3 but it's just a little bit too expensive still.

But MS has kept the 360 priced way too high for too long. I think it has to be a record for being the longest without a drop for the system. It's pretty stupid. So whatever Sony drops in price, MS will drop as well. The PS3 will for the remainder of this gen be the most expensive hardware. The problem is when people go to the store and see that both systems share 90% of the same games, they are just going to go with the cheaper one. Also the 360 has mindshare now too in the US so people will tend to get the system that their friends have.