• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PS3 to outsell Xbox 360

Shocking - how is that big news? 😀

PS3 owns Europe, and has no competition in Japan.
 
Last edited:
American Gunner said:
The only problem with making this a big deal is the fact that most multiplatform games sell way better on the 360.
Click to expand...

It's not a big deal. Just interesting when you remember back to the launch of the PS3 and everyone questioned if Sony would be able to make a go of it. Course Sony has since dropped the price and released a number of new versions of the console. The PS3 you buy now is quite different from the 60GB PS3 that was launched.
 
I agreee. And you have to wonder how many of the 360's sold were to the same people buying new ones after old ones broke. I know I upgraded to the new elite, so that counts as two consoles just from me. I know of a lot of people that did the same thing.
 
American Gunner said:
I agreee. And you have to wonder how many of the 360's sold were to the same people buying new ones after old ones broke. I know I upgraded to the new elite, so that counts as two consoles just from me. I know of a lot of people that did the same thing.
Click to expand...

I know people who have been through 3 or 4 360s!
 
Simple averages don't tell the whole story. The Xbox started selling considerably faster, then the PS3 took over, but ever since the Kinect launched, Xbox has been selling faster.
 
I have bought 3 360's. The first one out, first elite, and now the new elite. Also a older elite for my wife making it 4 I guess. Also with two of those being replaced my MS so really Ive had 6.
 
360 has that mind share like the ps2 used to.
Click to expand...

The 360 is trending to a last place finish, the PS2 outsold the GCN and XBox combined by more then 2:1. They do have one thing in common though, both of them were such an abortion of a design they got hugely infalted installed base numbers due to how frequently they broke down.
 
BenSkywalker said:
The 360 is trending to a last place finish, the PS2 outsold the GCN and XBox combined by more then 2:1. They do have one thing in common though, both of them were such an abortion of a design they got hugely infalted installed base numbers due to how frequently they broke down.
Click to expand...

This.

IMO, I think it is pretty amazing for the 360 to finish dead last given the 1 year head start, the hype, and everything else MS has thrown behind it. And then you consider how the numbers may have been inflated due to the crappy hardware and it is even more amazing. This also ignores any boost in sales figures for the Xbox due to those who went out and bought Kinect bundles.
 
Last edited:
IndyColtsFan said:
This.

IMO, I think it is pretty amazing for the 360 to finish dead last given the 1 year head start, the hype, and everything else MS has thrown behind it. And then you consider how the numbers may have been inflated due to the crappy hardware and it is even more amazing. This also ignores any boost in sales figures for the Xbox due to those who went out and bought Kinect bundles.
Click to expand...

'dead last'? Both the PS3 and the 360 have sold bajillions of systems, no matter which one 'wins' neither of them loses.
 
Veliko said:
'dead last'? Both the PS3 and the 360 have sold bajillions of systems, no matter which one 'wins' neither of them loses.
Click to expand...

Yes, 'dead last' -- as in, behind the other two. MS didn't release the Xbox 1 year ahead of everyone else, pour money into advertising, Kinect, etc., to finish in last place.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Yes, 'dead last' -- as in, behind the other two. MS didn't release the Xbox 1 year ahead of everyone else, pour money into advertising, Kinect, etc., to finish in last place.
Click to expand...

The phrase 'dead last' suggests that there is a loser. There isn't. You aren't putting any perspective behind this.
 
Veliko said:
The phrase 'dead last' suggests that there is a loser. There isn't. You aren't putting any perspective behind this.
Click to expand...

Dead last means just that -- they came in last place. It means or connotates nothing else.

Sure, they sold enough to make money off of the product. However, that isn't Microsoft's end goal and that is what you're missing. Microsoft generally enters a market with the intention of dominating it. I don't think the 360 is a failure in the sense that MS would throw in the towel -- it failed in other areas such as hardware reliability and, in my opinion, losing the value proposition to Sony. Why spend $300 for the Xbox 360 (hard drive model) when the same $300 gets you a PS3 with a blu-ray player and you don't have to pay extra for playing online or using Netflix? A lot of us saw this coming a year or two ago and IMO, Sony really upped the ante in terms of value. It is absolutely, positively ridiculous that I have to pay $40 to $60 a year to play games online or use Netflix on the Xbox. MS can charge what they want, but I let my 2 XBL subscriptions expire and will never renew them. If I decide to get a console from the next generation (a big IF), MS will have to do much, much more to win me back as a customer due to the hardware debacle and the cost of XBL.
 
IndyColtsFan said:
Dead last means just that -- they came in last place. It means or connotates nothing else.
Click to expand...

Of course it means something else otherwise the phrase wouldn't even exist, people would just say 'last'.

IndyColtsFan said:
Sure, they sold enough to make money off of the product. However, that isn't Microsoft's end goal and that is what you're missing. Microsoft generally enters a market with the intention of dominating it.
Click to expand...

As does any company.

IndyColtsFan said:
I don't think the 360 is a failure in the sense that MS would throw in the towel -- it failed in other areas such as hardware reliability and, in my opinion, losing the value proposition to Sony. Why spend $300 for the Xbox 360 (hard drive model) when the same $300 gets you a PS3 with a blu-ray player and you don't have to pay extra for playing online or using Netflix? A lot of us saw this coming a year or two ago and IMO, Sony really upped the ante in terms of value. It is absolutely, positively ridiculous that I have to pay $40 to $60 a year to play games online or use Netflix on the Xbox. MS can charge what they want, but I let my 2 XBL subscriptions expire and will never renew them. If I decide to get a console from the next generation (a big IF), MS will have to do much, much more to win me back as a customer due to the hardware debacle and the cost of XBL.
Click to expand...

The hardware failures are the only thing that really makes sense as a failure. The rest of it was as planned. The HD-DVD drive was always going to be an extra add-on.

Xbox Live has plenty of value though I don't use either my PS3 or 360 to go online now.
 
Veliko said:
Xbox Live has plenty of value though I don't use either my PS3 or 360 to go online now.
Click to expand...

What value does it have? If it has so much value, why does MS have to lump online gaming and Netflix into it? Why not make those part of XBL Silver, for example, and charge for the "extras" in XBL Gold? I think we all know why that doesn't happen.

Veliko said:
The hardware failures are the only thing that really makes sense as a failure. The rest of it was as planned. The HD-DVD drive was always going to be an extra add-on.
Click to expand...

The hardware failures and Microsoft's handling and continued bungling of the hardware was the biggest failure and is the reason I won't buy their next console unless there is a HUGE reason to get it.

I know the HD-DVD drive was always going to be an add on, and it is irrelevant, because Sony still wins the value proposition with a $300 PS3 with blu-ray and free Netflix playback vs. a $300 Xbox 360 with no hi def drive and requiring a $40-$60 subscription to use Netflix. IIRC, the HD-DVD add-on was $150 or $200 so at a minimum, you're looking at $450 + $40 for XBL Gold for an Xbox with comparable features to the PS3.

In the end, we'll just agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you.
 
Those number really don't mean a lot. Just because someone buys a PS3, doesn't mean they are playing games on it. On the contrary, if someone buys a 360, you can pretty much guarantee they are playing games. My parents and brother bought a PS3 for blu-ray playback solely. That doesn't do a damn bit of good for Sony. Now if you want to compare game attachment rate, I'm sure the 360 will slap around the PS3. And that's what it's all about, selling games. Nintendo is the only one that can get away with selling their consoles for a profit.

As for XBox Live, I think it is a great service and definitely worth it's $60 yearly subscription. PS3's PSN on the other hand is AWFUL compared to XBox Live when it comes to playing with friends online. So freakin' irritating! 😡 If you REALLY want to see something worthless, check out PSN Plus. Absolutely worthless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top