| Latest news |
|---|
Sony: We will pass Xbox 360 in sales soonDVDBack23 @ Feb 03, 2010 19:05 | 31 comments
"We can be passionate fans, but I don't think they'll be around in 10 years so I'm very confident we'll pass them within that time frame," says Dille. "I mean, we've got 31 million [units sold] worldwide right now - they've got 39 million [units sold]. I don't even need to go out 10 years. I'm not going to make any predictions for your interview today other than we'll pass them, but you look at where we are today and where they are today, and they had an opportunity to sprint as far ahead of us as possible when they had the head start. Well, we're breathing down their necks and they can see us in the rearview mirror and it's not going to take too long to pass them."
Additionally, Dille confirmed that the company would begin adding subscription models to PSN, although gaming would remain completely free. |
According to an interview with IGN,
 |
|
Comment by: hikayu15 (Feb 04, 2010 06:06) Doesn't this mean that the ps3 won't be superseded until 2020? Good luck with beating the xbox 720 then.
|
|
Comment by: chris4160 (Feb 04, 2010 09:29) Originally posted by hikayu15: I was not "taking" [adjusted tense] different generations against each other. You misinterpreted my post. When I said "Good luck with beating the xbox 720 then." I was referring to the ps4, not the ps3. As in it would be virtually impossible for the ps4 to beat the xbox 720 in sales if the xbox 720 was released 8 years (or so) earlier than the ps4.
Originally posted by hikayu15: LOL. At no point did I "question the words of a sony representative". I was simply stating a subjective rumour that I heard that would force every new psn user to subscribe to the premium service, it didn't even imply that online gaming would require a paid subscription (for existing members). The said rumour supposedly stemmed from an official Sony message, sent to everybody on the psn. I gave my ps3 to charity so I am unable to confirm it. BTW grow up and learn how to use grammar.
Originally posted by hikayu15: Again, I fail to see your point. I was never comparing different generations against each other, you keep making this up. IF you were referring to how I used the ps1 and xbox 1 in the same sentence I was simply implying that they were the start of each console, and that the playstation has had a huge time to lure fans compared to the xbox. Just like how Sony says Microsoft had a huge time to lure playstation fans to the 360.
|
|
Comment by: TBandit (Feb 04, 2010 10:39) No I remember reading about playstation adding subscriptions to PSN but it was just for streaming content so I am positive they will keep the gaming free which is all that matters to me. I'm starting to wonder when and if another xbox is going to come out. |
|
Comment by: emugamer (Feb 04, 2010 13:08) General consensus is that the PS4 will be released while the PS3 still has life. Similar to the PS2 still being sold 3 years after the PS3 release. So it's very possible that it won't be 10 years before the PS4 is released. Just 10 years of PS3 life. Of course, the PS2 is a novelty toy compared to the PS3. This probably won't be the case for the PS3. It's part of a new generation of online gaming that will keep it fresh for many for years to come. As the PSN grows and develops, the PS3 will maintain its longevity. It will definitely fade away eventually, but I agree that it has a solid 10 year life, if not more.
|
|
Comment by: Oner (Feb 04, 2010 13:49) Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by emugamer:
Originally posted by chris4160:
Originally posted by emugamer:
 Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660 |
|
Comment by: kikzm33z (Feb 04, 2010 18:41) I would've agreed if I read this a few weeks ago, but after the holiday sales, everything has went way down hill.
|
|
Comment by: Oner (Feb 04, 2010 20:12) Looks like it's closer than I thought (if the examiner added the fiscal reports correctly) ~ Life-to-date hardware sales as of the end of 2009 which gives a bit more credibility to Sony's comment in this news.
Quote: Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660 |
|
Comment by: xnonsuchx (Feb 05, 2010 01:18) Originally posted by Oner: Thanks for that info most people seem oblivious of, but you KNOW 360 fanbots are gonna just compare US/NA-only sales...and then if PS3 catches up in that market, they'll still blindly say PS3 SUX, just like so many bigots simply HATE having a black president (and BTW, I don't mean all anti-Obama people are bigots, but far too many of them come across that way). |
|
Comment by: rvinkebob (Feb 05, 2010 01:31) Originally posted by chris4160: The Wii was half the price of a premium 360 and nearly 1/3 the price of the premium PS3. My jaw would've dropped if the PS3 had doubled in sales.  |
|
Comment by: chris4160 (Feb 05, 2010 08:59) Originally posted by Oner: Okay, like I said it was just something I heard, not believed. But I wouldn't be suprised if the is some sort of catch introduced in the long run (maybe requiring people to sign up to a premium service to download paid dlc, or something like that).
Originally posted by Oner: That's a good point, but the same could be said for the ps3. I reckon that a lot of the people that bought a slim would probably already own a ps3.
Originally posted by Oner: It's not really fair to compare two products that were sold at different times. There's a lot of variables that could change the outcome of one console (stronger/weaker economy etc). If the microsoft had have delayed the release of the 360 to coincide with the release of the ps3 rrod may have never existed. Granted it could work in ps3's favour.
|
|
Comment by: cpspoo (Feb 05, 2010 14:33) Quote: I couldn't disagree more. Quantity of sales is the ONLY true determining factor when discussing which system is better. Everything else (exclusive titles, online playing, most fanatic consumers) is subjective. How could you accurately measure everyone's individual experiences and weigh the results? |
|
Comment by: emugamer (Feb 05, 2010 15:03) Originally posted by chris4160: How is that a logical conclusion? The slim PS3 reduced the price, making it more affordable for people who may have been waiting. The 360 owners who were banned or had rrods are more inclined to purchase a new 360 if that was their only option. I think it's much more reasonable to assume that a person who owned a fat PS3 would not buy a slim PS3 just because it's slim. That's like assuming that 360 Elite owners ran out to buy the arcade version. Maybe I'm not understanding where you are going with this.
Originally posted by chris4160: It's a perfectly fair comparison. There are no "what ifs." The 360 is the console it is now because of how and when it was released. Plain and simple. The release of both consoles is too close to consider the lag as a significant variable. Both have been subject to pretty much the same variables. We're not comparing consoles that were released 10 years apart.
Originally posted by chris4160: You're right in that the future is what counts. But the PS3 also has a good year ahead of it. What's naive is making assumptions based on a 40k/week rate. Both consoles have exclusives that will push it. The next couple of years have a lot of variables to consider. But historically speaking, the 360 is ending it's run and the PS3 moving forward. |
|
Comment by: Gnawnivek (Feb 05, 2010 15:48) Quote:Originally posted by Oner: If you're counting factors like the economy and inflation, the PS3 numbers are better than the Xbox 360. It's not naive to say the PS3 will out sell the 360, it's happening... If you're counting exclusives, the PS3 got a lot more than 360. As for Natal, the PS3 got that funny ball looking remote, so it's equally matched (not that some gamers care, lol).
|
|
Comment by: chris4160 (Feb 06, 2010 04:39) Originally posted by cpspoo: Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Sales are a SUBJECTIVE factor, as usually people will buy what they think is better (or if they liked the previous model). Look at the sales figures, 30,000 of the 40,000 ps3 units that were sold over the 360 last week were sold in Japan. Less than 2,000 360's were sold in Japan last week. Could this be because the consumers in Japan are biased against the xbox 360 as it is an American console and the ps3 is a home-grown alternative? Sales are opinion based, and are in no way a gauge of which one is "better".
Originally posted by emugamer: The xbox 360 had a 12 month warranty at release, any console that got rrod when the ps3 was not released would have been repaired by microsoft. That point is void. AFAIK the first ban wave due to modded firmware was in October/November '06 (I've got no clue about the modding scene back then though). Another invalid point (unless the ban wave was earlier, in which case I apologise).
Originally posted by emugamer: I don't see how it's naive. It's a lot fairer than basing it on 100k a week results like most have implied. From memory the 360 was once beating the ps3 by 50,000+ a week, it just shows that anything can change.
Originally posted by emugamer: Then why does Sony keep saying that the only reason they are behind in sales is because they released the ps3 later? If there are no "what ifs", then sony's excuse that "If we released it at the same time as the 360 the ps3 would be beating the it" is null and void and the discussion is over.
Originally posted by Gnawnivek:
Originally posted by Gnawnivek: Yeah, but the xbox has media center and msn. Plus media streaming.
|
|
Comment by: xnonsuchx (Feb 06, 2010 05:31) Originally posted by cpspoo: So Pizza Hut is the best pizza ever? |
|
Comment by: jricky (Feb 06, 2010 12:26) if sony comes up with a premiun account for psn they wont cath up in 10 years no way. why would i pay $299.00 + $60.00 + premiun account when i can pay $199.00 + $60.00 + premiun account , i mean i can get an extra game or control or hd cable or save $100.00..... |
|
Comment by: emugamer (Feb 06, 2010 17:11) Originally posted by chris4160: I agree. Sales just determine which is the more successful console, obviously. There is no way to determine which console is better. No matter how many spec breakdowns are done and what industry "experts" decide, the owners of the "losing" console will always disagree. But this article is not about which console is better. It's about how successful the PS3 may be as a long term purchase.
Originally posted by chris4160: Well, with the rrod, you have a double wammy. It was happening to people in different time periods. Regardless of how many happened before the PS3 release, it was an ongoing problem until recent hardware changes. There were many people who had theirs rrod fail after the 1 year warranty and before MS extended the warranty to 3 years. And even then, it didn't apply to everyone. Then you have the rrods of modded consoles. Some stores didn't care if you exchanged them, but others did. There has also been more than 1 ban wave. Maybe 3? (someone corrrect me). My point is, it doesn't matter when the rrod's happened or when the ban waves happened. We would be comparing the first 5 years of each consoles life. And like I said, their individual release dates are too close to think that comparing the first 5 years of each console is unfair due to external factors like the economy. I still don't understand why you would assume that people who bought the fat PS3 would be inclined to buy a slim when there's is working fine. Personally if mine failed, I would ship it back to get it fixed for $150 rather than buy a new slim. And I don't know any other PS3 owners (and I know many) who would do that. Whereas, owners of 360's that were modded that failed may be less inclined to send their console back to MS for repairs, and would be more inclined to by a new console (if for whatever reason they fell outside of whatever warranty umbrella exists at the time).
Originally posted by chris4160: I apologize if I was implying that you were naive. What I typed and what I meant were two separate things. But, I still feel that assuming a $40k/week lead to project the PS3 sales for the next however many years is a bit on the low side. Like you said, anything can change.
Originally posted by chris4160: The reason why Sony keeps up with this argument is that many people compare total MS sales since its release to total Sony sales since its release. Which is an unfair comparison because MS has 1 more year selling its console. When I said that there are no "what if's" I meant it in the context of taking the first 5 years of 360 sales and comparing it to the first 5 years of PS3 sales. That evens things out and really gives you the best comparison.
Originally posted by chris4160: Purely subjective.
Originally posted by chris4160: I can agree with that if there is no data showing otherwise.
Originally posted by chris4160: You're absolutely correct. They even cater to different demographics (somewhat). |
|
Comment by: Oner (Feb 06, 2010 21:19) Originally posted by chris4160: That is not nearly the same thing because that wouldn't be even close to what the number's are/could be for the 360's issues.
Originally posted by chris4160: There is nothing naive. You are only being naive if you only look at 1 specific item of data and limit yourself to that. An aligned sales comparison does matter as it shows how well one item did (or is doing) vs the other in it's time frame 1:1 but even then if you don't agree the PS3 has STILL outsold the 360 in availability to market i.e. the Wii is the #1 fastest selling console followed by the PS2 then the PS3 while the 360 is something like 8th or something like that...
Originally posted by chris4160: Sorry but I have to correct you on that. The 360 had a 90 Day Warranty when it was released. I am one of the few people who got screwed because of it. The 360 I got RROD'ed under 90 days, then because it was not under warranty it had to be opened to be fixed via the original Llama Mod X-clamp fix only for MS to later extend the warranty and not cover a "modified" console. So your point is the one that is actually void (in part at least).
Originally posted by chris4160: But then you are contradicting yourself because you just said earlier that "Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better" and then again right here that "Quantity doesn't equal quality" ~ so imho that applies to Halo because if it is "popular" that doesn't mean it is "better" or "good"...and the same applies to Modern Warfare 2 with all it's glitches and issues.
Originally posted by chris4160: Yes very true (about preference) but the PS3 also has media streaming capabilities as well don't forget.
Originally posted by emugamer: Exactly. Plus the averages show the PS3's exclusives actually rate higher. Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660 |
|
Comment by: chris4160 (Feb 07, 2010 08:20) Originally posted by Oner: Yes, but the rrod and bannings would probably work in ps3's favour in the long term. It would be hard to imagine the ps3 (or the wii) would be as successful as they are now if the rrod never existed (not to mention if the hardware prices were actually reasonable).
Originally posted by Oner: My bad, I don't really know a lot about the release date console. But the warranty was extended just over a year later (microsoft are idiots to wait that long to extend it).
Originally posted by Oner: AFAIK the first xtreme firmware was released in mid 2006, so the bannings occured in late 06, the same time as the ps3 was released. So I stand by my original statement.
Originally posted by Oner: To sales; yes. To online popularity; not so much. Obviously nobody is going to keep playing a game online if it sucks. But if somebody buys a console they are stuck with it whether they like it or not (unless they return it, but that may still count as a console sold). I heard that halo 3 has 3000 years of total online gameplay, somehow I don't doubt it either (I read that mid last year aswell, it is probably significantly larger now).
Originally posted by Oner: Those averages would be subjective aswell, that's just being pedantic now though :). I find it hard to believe that there is a ps3 equivalent to halo 3, left 4 dead (1 and 2), Gears of War (1 and 2 again) and forza. The xbox's average would also be dragged down by mass of crap games, like viva pinata (the ps3's would also).
Originally posted by emugamer: Collectors item etc. The way I see the slim is basically a gimmick to attract more attention. I know of a lot of cases where people traded in there ps2 to get a slim. I think that the slim is meant to be like the elite; better. Certainly if people did research they would discoer that the slim is inferior in most aspects excluding price. Probably too many people wouldn't have done this though.
Originally posted by emugamer: Or they could have bought a ps3. The rrod works in both ways tbh. |
|
Comment by: emugamer (Feb 08, 2010 17:24) Originally posted by chris4160: Collector's item? That's just silly to consider as a number padding factor. Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The same can be said about Elite owners buying the Arcade as a collectors item, in which case, this type of "padding" cancels out.
Originally posted by chris4160: Again we will agree to disagree. IMO, That scenario is less likely. I just find it hard to believe. I couldn't convince my friends to change teams even after their 3rd 360. They are already heavily invested in it - subscription, stats, online game clans etc. And then you have people who use modded systems. Shelling out the cash for a new console is pennies to them compared to the savings they see pirating games. I'm not saying that switching to a PS3 can't happen. Just that there are too many factors that would make it less likely, and that it would hardly be a reason to eliminate rrod as a number padding contributor. |
|
Comment by: Morreale (Feb 08, 2010 22:32) Originally posted by emugamer: 100% agreed here. Tried to get my friend on his 4th 360 to switch and he almost did but no... He'll probably get one this year though. |
|
Comment by: Se7ven (Feb 08, 2010 23:39) that's one of my reasons for staying on team 360 my gamer score is 36,185 it took me a long time to get that high i thought about switching now that the ps3 price is sweet it make me want to own both. todd logan
|
|
Comment by: Gnawnivek (Feb 09, 2010 02:11) Originally posted by Se7ven: 36,185 achievement points roughly equal to level 16 or 17 on PSN, which is pretty impressive. It's a ballpark estimate, so don't get carried away... On PSN, there's this trophy system, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Each trophies contribute some points to a level. Earlier levels are easy, but it gets harder as you go along. If you get every achievement points in a game, that's 1000, which equivalent to ONE Platinum trophy and whatever other trophies set in the game. It's quite a feat to obtain a platinum trophy (a lot of work in most cases).
|
|
Comment by: Morreale (Feb 09, 2010 05:22) Quote:Originally posted by Se7ven: I like it better cause it more like Pokemon :D |
|
Comment by: xnonsuchx (Feb 09, 2010 05:39) Originally posted by emugamer: ...w/o the US$19.99 official vertical stand or some other method. |
 |
RSS Feeds: