There's always people who buy both consoles. There would also be people like me who would buy neither if the PS4 wasn't available.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PlayStation 4 Sales Surpass 7.0 Million Units (April 6th), 20.5M Software (April 13)
- Thread starter EGOMON
- Start date
StreetDisciple
Member
Yeah that sounds about right. It will be real interesting if PS4 can surpass 360's one year lead in sales it had over PS3 last generation. I think that would be the true nail in the coffin.
Overlap, someone is likely to have both console's than having 2 of one console per person.
Plus a dev has to invest money in developing for the other console rather than just one, this is why the WiiU gets shit on by devs, because the return in just merely porting a game isn't worth it.
I think he means that a dev has to make 2 versions of his game while with one console he has to only make one. He has more profit selling his game to the one console install base even if the total numbers of consoles is 100 mil in both scenarios.
brownfedora
Member
For the industry to thrive, one must die. I hope the industry and the gaming audience come to a collective consensus by the end of the year that xbone needs to die so we can move on to gaming nirvana.
Pulled from Wiki, maybe inaccurate:
1st gen - Nintendo (Color TV)
2nd gen - Atari (2600)
3rd gen - Nintendo (NES)
4th gen - Nintendo (SNES)
5th gen - Sony (PS1)
6th gen - Sony (PS2)
7th gen - Nintendo (Wii)
I dont know, but from what I hear, my German brethren are woefully understocked for Quads, 6 months later, poor form, Sony.
LMAO, that is cruel.
BradleyLove
Member
PS4 and X1 are basically PCs so the cost of porting is basically non-existant.
Hoping for a single console future is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. What if that console was 599$ PS3 instead of 399$ X360? Or DRM-X1 instead of PS4? But oh well, if we are hoping for single console future, then I'll hope it's Sony that disappears soon enough. They are out of money so they can't be trusted to be around providing games in the seeable future. Yeah, this makes as much sense as your post.
AAA industry is already fucked, nothing will save it anymore. Even the thought that AAA needs to be saved by different actions should tell you how fucked it is. Create a sustainable business model instead you numbnuts.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
That post isn't asking for sales parity. They are saying competition drives the industry forward which it does.
Who said competition = sales parity?
Competition brought us X360, competition brought us PSP and DS, competition brought us PS4 etc. Competition brought us PS+, competition brought us great exclusive games and so on. Right now competition is bringing us 449$ Titanfall bundle instead of 499$ no-game bundle, games sales on every platform etc. MS has been shitted on by gamers and competition for months so they have to deliver this E3 via great software. Nintendo is fumbling terribly with Wii U and getting their ass kicked, so expect them to deliver big time if not in this gen then with their next home console if that happens. That's what competition does, and if they deliver then consumers win by getting more options.
If as a consumer you are hoping for a platform to die because you don't happen to like it, then you are a stupid shithead fanboy.
gundamkyoukai
Member
That is because the user base is split between consoles if your talking about numbers PS2 was 155 million and last gen PS3 and 360 were 80 million each which is 160 million not that big of difference .
For devs PC games and consoles game are the same and mobile and tablets will take over the handhled sector .
Are you really going to say Nintendo is stronger on there own right now ?
At least during the PS2 era GC sold 22 million and they had handheld sales to fall back on .
Now Wii U will be lucky to sell as much as GC and they don't have there handheld sales to fall back on since mobile eating it alive .
MS did great last gen but we have to see how things going work out for them this gen and i don't understand your last point ?
If there is only one console they won't have third party exclusives since everything would come on that console and PC.
Once again you are not looking at the numbers MS and Sony numbers for last gen 80 + 80 million is 160 million add a extra 15 million for sales before they dead that is 175 million sales plus PC .
Now lets add up the PS2 era PS2 155 million and XB was 25 million that is 180 million plus PC they work out to about the same .
What do you think is cheaper for devs \ companies 1 consoles with 150 million sales plus PC or 2 consoles with 75 million each plus PC
For the second one devs \ companies need more man power to port games between systems for the same user base , go threw 2 sets of API , certification , rules , disc manufacturing etc etc
Worry about which system selling more in what country (this hurt JP devs last gen ) and also smaller devs .
From a consumers stand point 1 system plus PC is a huge saving for them i get to play everything only buying 1 system or upgrading my PC , devs have more time to make the games better , don't have to pay to play online .
Right now if i want to play everything i need 2 systems which is twice the cost , 2 subscription to play online and whole bunch of other trash .
Consoles gaming with always have competition be it from other hobbies or services even if there is only 1 system.
1 consoles plus PC would be good for the industry IMO no matter who the manufacturing is .
iceatcs
Junior Member
I don't think it is true. It might be cheaper than last gen but I don't think it is either free or extreme cheap.
Brad Grenz
Member
Competition is not losing a screw over a bad product failing. Competition is not blind faith that someone will "bring it" at E3. Competition tells us just because on company drops out of a market doesn't mean no one else can throw their hat in the ring.
Sometimes a company just can't compete anymore, but no one deserves to be here and it isn't anyone's responsibility to prop them up. Your grocery store doesn't keep rotting produce around just so people will have more options.
IF MS drops out that doesn't automatically mean the market shrinks. It could just mean Sony absorbs all those users. Publishers/Developers benefit from reduced porting costs and their user base all being in the same place so they stop losing sales from people who want their game, but not enough to buy different hardware. Gamers benefit by not having to buy 3 multiple systems to gain access to all the games they want to play. That's hundreds of dollars that could go to buying more games instead of more ways to play games.
Do you see a rotting product on the store? Maybe Vita and Wii U, although Wii U gets some support from Nintendo.
But are you saying X1 can't compete anymore? Is it a rotting product? No and no. And after only six months you shouldn't even be making these calls. It took from end of 2006 to mid 2009 (PS3 slim) for PS3 to start shining. That's almost 3 years.
I see what you are going after with your one console dream, but there is too many questions and dangers that overcome the positive sides. Do you have an example where a single product market has been better than multiple competing products?
gundamkyoukai
Member
If want a eg we would could use beta vs VHS or HD DVD vs Blu ray , remember at the end of the day games are just software , for consumers it being like the movie industry would be the best .
A minimum spec then hardware and software manufactures compete from there like PC \ steam box but with much more players and options so consoles gamers still get there box under there TV but they don't have problems on the OS , driver etc etc side .
Still that a bigger dream than 1 consoles plus PC .
Once again, Sony had Europe and the rest of the world to fall back on. They also had the 1st party dev team to pump out games that aren't available anywhere else. MS has neither of them this gen.
PS2
I have owned a PS4 and xbone since the uk launch for both systems and I don't regret the purchase of either of them.
I can't wait until this gen really starts and titles start coming from everywhere including indie devs.
But Sony have and are doing so much right and they deserve it.
Straight from the start they came out with the smaller, cheaper and more powerful console that easier to develop for.
If the xbone was in front then it would be a sad day but the consumer made the choice and all because MS fucked up and because of that I applaud the gamers for showing these big companies that they need to earn our pennies and that we aren't stupid.
I can't wait until this gen really starts and titles start coming from everywhere including indie devs.
But Sony have and are doing so much right and they deserve it.
Straight from the start they came out with the smaller, cheaper and more powerful console that easier to develop for.
If the xbone was in front then it would be a sad day but the consumer made the choice and all because MS fucked up and because of that I applaud the gamers for showing these big companies that they need to earn our pennies and that we aren't stupid.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Exactly. I think some people are misreading what was said. Nobody is asking all platforms having sales parity to move forward. Instead what keeps happening and will continue to happen is competition staying around to prevent companies from having a monopoly. Right now the two bigger products that are failing to capture wide audiences are the Wii U and Vita. Does anyone really think Nintendo is going to pull out? I also doubt Sony will give up on Vita and hand the market over to Nintendo. Meanwhile the XBox One has sold better than both of those products so far but more people are wanting Microsoft to pull out. That to me suggests they simply don't like the company and it's more wishful thinking than anything.
We are also unlikely to ever see domination like we saw with the PS2 and that is because of the growing interest for big publishers to release their games on more platforms. The PS2 was the go to system for games back then and had many exclusive games from third party and also timed exclusive like GTA. Back then the PS2 had over 70% of the console market and didn't have to compete with mobile and tablets, plus PC gaming wasn't as strong as it is today.
Using mediums like HD DVD versus bluray doesn't work here. Consumers are not willing to support that type of market where you have two different formats to watch movies on. This dates back to the betamax versus VHS days. Gaming on the other hand does support it and dates back to the Nintendo/Sega days.
Sony didn't have great 1st party studios in the beginning of the last generation. They developed and gained those over years. What actually prevents MS to start developing their own studios and make their 1st party output even better?
Xbox and GC were there too, and I would take Gamecube's library any day over PS2's since I owned both back then. Metroid Prime is simply better than anything on PS2. I'm actually talking about a single product market where there absolutely isn't any competition. It sounds so fucking crazy that somebody actually dreams of this. What is the happiest country with a dictator as a ruler btw?
Single console market in my mind leads to: stagnation, since you don't have to bring new hardware so often. Example GC-Wii for twelve years. Your preference is what defines if this is good or bad thing. Lack of innovation, since why push for anything new. Terrible prices, since there's no competition to force your hand. Bad ratio for price-hardware. Etc. Only positive side I can think of is that any game would work on this wonder-console.
I don't think Sony's online system would be what it is without Xbox Live. I don't think think PS+ would exist without competition. I don't think Xbox division would exist without Sony. PSP wouldn't exist without Nintendo. Playstation division wouldn't exist without Nintendo. Etc.
shinra-bansho
Member
They'll probably have another go-around. And they may fail again to present a viable value proposition, and may perform even more poorly than present. At which point they may cede the home console market. Which is perfectly within the nature of competitive markets. If a market is sufficiently attractive though companies will continue to compete within it.
That's obviously not the position the Xbox One is in though.
Lol.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
dp
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Look no further than the PS3 of what could follow from a mass success. The PS3 wasn't the best built gaming system. It created headaches for developers and led to multiplat games being inferior in the beginning. It also led to many games being delayed and not much to play until MGS4 came out. It also was severely lacking in an online service in the beginning. All for a price of upwards to $600 U.S. at launch.
Then we see what followed with the Wii's success. The Wii U is failing to capture audiences and showed to me Nintendo's lack of moving forward.
But yet less than a year from launch of the XBox One where the system has sold rather well compared to previous systems (and not just compared to previous XBox systems) in the same time period we have those who want Microsoft to pull out? Dream on.
Sure, Nintendo could but we are talking many years from now in a market that is ever evolving. We don't even know if Sony will have another go around.
Also why laugh about Vita, Sony is still making them even though Nintendo beat them during the PSP days and are beating them even more with Vita. They may not make another but it's not because of how well Nintendo has done but rather the shift in the market with the popularity of mobile and tablets.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Eww.
One console doesn't have to die. Plus competition isn't going to suffer if one dies. Sega died, the competition wasn't lacking when it happened.
However having choice is all that matters. If we had a monopoly of one thing, there would be no fun,no individuality. The reason why its good to have other competitors is because choice. Everyone wants something different and wishing for the Xbox death is pathetic, fanboyish, ignorant, and down right distasteful.
Not everyone in the world wants a Sony system, not everyone like what Sony offers. That's what Microsoft is for. These companies aren't doing what they are doing primarily to dominate but to appeal to a certain mass. Both Microsoft and Sony do what they do for just that. Give MS some credit. What they do, they do right and just because they had a moment of incompetence doesn't mean it invalidates all the good they have done for the industry and for their fans. They offer that difference that people want and that's what they are here for. Of course sales and the likes also matter to keep things profitable, but it isn't so black and white. They aren't going to drop the entire system because of fanboy politics.
One console doesn't have to die. Plus competition isn't going to suffer if one dies. Sega died, the competition wasn't lacking when it happened.
However having choice is all that matters. If we had a monopoly of one thing, there would be no fun,no individuality. The reason why its good to have other competitors is because choice. Everyone wants something different and wishing for the Xbox death is pathetic, fanboyish, ignorant, and down right distasteful.
Not everyone in the world wants a Sony system, not everyone like what Sony offers. That's what Microsoft is for. These companies aren't doing what they are doing primarily to dominate but to appeal to a certain mass. Both Microsoft and Sony do what they do for just that. Give MS some credit. What they do, they do right and just because they had a moment of incompetence doesn't mean it invalidates all the good they have done for the industry and for their fans. They offer that difference that people want and that's what they are here for. Of course sales and the likes also matter to keep things profitable, but it isn't so black and white. They aren't going to drop the entire system because of fanboy politics.
shinra-bansho
Member
If they haven't given up on Vita yet, then they're deluded. And it's not really their choice ultimately as retailers aren't going to be ordering a product in substantive quantities when they can only sell a unit every couple of months.
The dedicated handheld market will return to a Nintendo monopoly unless and until a new entrant decides to challenge, although it's not a particularly attractive market these days so I don't really think anyone will. Nintendo still won't be able to charge exorbitant prices and shit on consumers etc. etc. because 1) these are non-essential luxury goods and 2) they're easily substitutable in both direct fashion with other devices that provide interactive entertainment and indirectly in that there are alternative forms of entertainment. Home consoles are similar in that regard. (It's strange that no one decries the essential monopoly that Nintendo have historically held over the dedicated handheld market, and will again.)
If there was nothing competing with a $599 console, that doesn't dictate that the $599 console sells well. If a market is attractive, then it naturally attracts competitors.
gundamkyoukai
Member
I don't think it that cut and dry let me explain take Xbox for eg yes some consumers support it but the brand only stay alive because MS was willing to lose billions to keep it so (same for Sony and PS3).
That did not happen to such a degree in the movie format wars plus the movie industry just stop supporting one format and because hardware makers don't make as much off movies sales compare to games \services the format die out .
Platform fees, certification rules etc mean that it's not just "flipping a switch" to port a game to a console, however similar it might be to a PC.
fallen_dawn
Member
That's not necessarily true. I don't know nearly enough to make a sound judgement of what would happen in a market with only one main firm being the supplier, but I highly doubt they'ld be able to set any price, "since there's no competition".
If that firm was to set their price too high, there would be little-to-no sales. Sure, I guess you're talking about a situation in which there exists only one firm through which games are provided, but that's just not reality. In reality, even without a second major firm, there's always companies making new products. There's smartphone gaming, PC gaming, handheld gaming, even boxes like Ouya.
If hypothetical single-major-firm was to set a high price, demand would drop as consumers move over to those substitutes. Or, if this was not the case, and major-firm was making a massive profit by setting an unrealistically high price, new firms would have an incentive to appear and also trade.
So bringing it back to your argument. Yes, "competition" is good, but no, I do not believe companies always need an equal competitor in terms of market share. If Microsoft was to drop out of the market tomorrow, leaving only Sony, no, they likely wouldn't bring us a lack of innovation and the death of gaming. Microsoft would be replaced by others, even moreso if Sony was to drop the ball.
Andodalf
Banned
Well Sony has basically given up. The plan now seems to be to be just letting Japanese dev's make games for it, secure Indy's who want to make ps4 games, and then maybe one or two first party games a year, with a moneyhat port of a hype game to boot.
I mean they really don't loose anything by leaving it on shelves, so why abandon it?
I'm not talking about sales parity. These things go in cycles, and the latest cycle has just begun.
Shrike_Priest
Member
Stagnation from a single console market as a result of an Xbox One failure is just not going to happen.
If the Xbox One were to actually die an early death (Saturn style), the PS4 would still have to compete with PC, mobile and handheld as well as any potential future offerings from Nintendo coming (which probably will be "mid gen"). They are not going to be able to raise prices, slouch behind on first party or whatever. Sony as a corporation is hurting like hell, SCE are not going to coast even if the Xbox One disappears.
And I doubt they'd unlearn what they learned with the PS3/PS4 turnaround.
I'm picturing this as much more analogous to the Saturn/PS1 situation than anything else. And the PS1/N64-generation kicked ass.
Competition is good for innovation, sure, but the console market is being attacked on all fronts and Sony and Nintendo would do fine as the only major players, and gamers would be better off.
Well that's just cray!
Why are people using extremes in their argument. The Ps4 won't be the only console on the market even if it has the same market share as the PS2. As long as there's OPTIONS to buy another console, no one should be complaining or begging for consumers to buy a console that has less value than the other console. It's up to companies to improve their value proposal.
Also, why are people still trying to spin the transition to the PS3 as a "arrogant" and "anti-consumer" thing? Is it really bad that a market leader took a $200 hit on every console to include the cheapest Blu ray on the market, built in wifi when the competitor offered a $100 solution, PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility, and a bunch of other advantages over the competition?
I feel like people only mention the quotes during the early PS3 days, rather than the overall value of the console. Although, price was definitely too high if people only wanted to just play PS3 games. I couldn't even consider to buy it at the time when I lived with my mom, so I can see how a lot of kids couldn't buy the PS3 at the time.
Also, why are people still trying to spin the transition to the PS3 as a "arrogant" and "anti-consumer" thing? Is it really bad that a market leader took a $200 hit on every console to include the cheapest Blu ray on the market, built in wifi when the competitor offered a $100 solution, PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility, and a bunch of other advantages over the competition?
I feel like people only mention the quotes during the early PS3 days, rather than the overall value of the console. Although, price was definitely too high if people only wanted to just play PS3 games. I couldn't even consider to buy it at the time when I lived with my mom, so I can see how a lot of kids couldn't buy the PS3 at the time.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Yeah all us Xbox gamers would be better off with MS pulling out and making our purchases obsolete.
BundysFeet
Banned
The Wii's success was an accident. Nintendo did terrible with the N64 and followed it up with the GameCube. Why didn't they follow up with the N64 by delivering in a big way? Sony had one gen in which the company screwed up and yet it still sold almost 70 million more consoles than the GameCube and now its doing great with the PS4.
Nintendo didn't expect the Wii to catch on like it did. The company didn't even support the system for more than 3-4 years and allowed it to die a terrible death. Nintendo should have released a successful follow up but it didn't. The Wii's success is more of an anamoly for post SNES Nintendo than a common occurrence.
If you expect Nintendo to come back with a vengeance next gen you haven't been paying attention to the company for their home console space in the last 18 years.
We're nowhere near that stage, if that's what the market decides, yeah tough luck.
Microsoft is far from finished. Ask Nintendo if they'd take Xbox One sales over the same period for the Wii U.
Microsoft's course of action is working. If DRM wasn't a talking point Microsoft might equal Sony's sales. I expect new IP from Microsoft throughout most of next year.
Speaking of sales.... PS4 has no games!
...
...
Imagine what would happen if PS4 gets some legit AAA games. That number could go up.
Microsoft's course of action is working. If DRM wasn't a talking point Microsoft might equal Sony's sales. I expect new IP from Microsoft throughout most of next year.
Speaking of sales.... PS4 has no games!
...
...
HOLLA AT 20.5 MILLION UNITS IN YOUR MOUTH. Digest deez units... ALL 20.5 million of them.
Boombloxer
Member
CoD, BF and AC4 aren't legit?
If my sarcasm meter isn't working, it's because I just awoke.
If my sarcasm meter isn't working, it's because I just awoke.
Mr Moose
Member
Maybe MS could get their games working on PS4
Not really, a console doesn't need to die, and I doubt it will, unless the shareholders get pissed about it not selling as well as the competitor.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
Yeah, Sony's really been putting some real effort behind the Vita. Never doubt the champion!
I'd hope so. I'd be scared it went down.
They might equal those sales in North America - which isn't saying much considering the gap isn't that wide.
They'd still be screwed everywhere else because DRMgate is not the only image issue facing the Xbox One. At the end of the day, matching the competitor in a market you previously dominated is still a loss.
Also, where would these new IP come from? Their most hyped new studio just got tasked with working Gears. I highly doubt there's potential to money hat anyone considering they lead the competition exactly nowhere.
BundysFeet
Banned
The DRM isn't the only thing that hurt Microsoft. I'd argue the #1 reason for the differentiation is price. When Microsoft can offer a product that is at or lower cost than the PS4 in which the public sees comparable value for the price than the numbers will begin to improve. Until then it's going to be the $599 all over again, except this time it's Microsoft that is hurting.
Yeah, Sony's really been putting some real effort behind the Vita. Never doubt the champion!
Why so much sarcasm? The Vita gets new games every week it seems and they're mere weeks away from the release of a slim redesign. I don't see why it's the Vita's fault that North America doesn't like handhelds.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Please tell you're not serious w/ the "noah gammzes" part, because I figure being Huey and all, you'd have more sense than that.
The problem is, in a way they've done that already w/ the TitanFall bundles, and it still wasn't enough. Price isn't the main factor. Image (both as a brand and from the debacles last year) are. I think people will be surprised at how many casuals know about the DRM fiasco; it's probably a lot.
Now add that w/ the image problem of getting significant discounts only six months into its lifespan (creating doubt in the consumer when they see the rival system selling like hotcakes at no discount or higher-than-MSRP), and it's a problem much more significant than price could ever be.
Sony's problem was they were far too ambitious with the PS3's hardware design and completely overenginereed their followup to the PS2. Both Blu-Ray and the Cell processor were not ready for inclusion in a mass market consumer device in November 2006 but Sony had to launch the PS3 to keep up with the competition. What gamers called "arrogance" was Sony trying to sell a $800 console to a public that didn't want to pay more than $400.
Sony learned a hard lesson there.
There's so much crazy hyperbole in this thread with people drooling over the idea of microsodt being finished. Does anyone remember the ps3 early last gen and it's sales position compared to the 360? That console managed to recover despite the ridiculous price and the cell being a nightmare to make games for initially, with poor tools available. Competition is apways good and needed, why would any of you here want this to be a one man race.