April Console Sales #'s.

[SirFozzie]

Nintendo DS 471k
Wii 360k
PlayStation 2 194k
PlayStation Portable 183k
Xbox 360 174k
Game Boy Advance 84k
PlayStation 3 82k
GameCube 13k

Top 10 U.S. Software Items- April 2007 Units
NDS POKEMON DIAMOND VERSION NINTENDO OF AMERICA APR 2007 EVERYONE (E) 1.045 M
NDS POKEMON PEARL VERSION NINTENDO OF AMERICA APR 2007 EVERYONE (E) 712K
WII SUPER PAPER MARIO NINTENDO OF AMERICA APR 2007 EVERYONE (E) 352K
WII PLAY W/ REMOTE NINTENDO OF AMERICA FEB 2007 EVERYONE (E) 249K
360 GUITAR HERO 2 W/ GUITAR ACTIVISION MAR 2007 TEEN (T) 197K
PS2 GUITAR HERO 2 W/GUITAR ACTIVISION NOV 2006 TEEN (T) 142K
360 SPIDER-MAN 3 ACTIVISION APR 2007 TEEN (T) 117K
PS2 SPIDER-MAN 3 ACTIVISION APR 2007 TEEN (T) 105K
PS2 GOD OF WAR II SONY MAR 2007 MATURE (M) 101K
PS2 MLB '07: THE SHOW SONY FEB 2007 EVERYONE (E) 79K


Japan Hardware sales for 5/7-5/13
DSL 163,785
Wii 52,544
PSP 34,433
PS2 10,414
PS3 8,839
Xbox360 2,105
GBM 408
GBASP 343
GC 315
DS 39
GBA 18


The gap seems to be WIDENING, not closing.

6-1 Wii in Japan? and 4.5-1 Wii in America? Is this a major stumble by PS3? (yes, the PS2 #'s are still strong, though)

[sabotai]

Only 82,000 PS3 units sold? I don't think there is a way you can really explain how bad that is. It's just....bad. I know that April is another historically low month for console sales, but the PS3 is now officially putting up original XBox sales numbers.

And I think the 174k for the XBox 360 is the lowest 1 month units sales figure for them as well, so they're not exactly doing all that great either.

[SirFozzie]

and 194K PS2's. Yes, the PS2 is so very much cheaper.. but one of my non FOFC friends who I copied those #'s to asked me if it was a sign that people are rejecting the next gen for current gen

[twothree]

It's good to be Nintendo. I hope these hardware sales numbers help put more original/quality third party games on the Wii like they have for the DS.

[Izulde]

The problem is that the PS3 lacks a killer exclusive, in my opinion. If you can get an exclusive that's a must-get for a lot of people, the price point isn't nearly as much an issue.

[kingfc22]

The PS3 is getting PWND

[sooner333]

I mean, is there much upside for PS3 exclusives in the near-future? I haven't been following things too closely, but it would seem to me that the best exclusive coming up this year would be Halo 3, at least in terms of getting new consoles off the shelves.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Izulde

The problem is that the PS3 lacks a killer exclusive, in my opinion. If you can get an exclusive that's a must-get for a lot of people, the price point isn't nearly as much an issue.

I don't know if there are more games out in the States than over here in Australia for the PS3, but I was looking in EB Games a few days ago and saw absolutely nothing that would make me want a PS3. There's what, that moto racing game, and an F1 game? That's about it.

[14ers]

Here is some good news for PS3 owners.

Blu-ray sales reach 1 million milestone


Matt Martin 09:57 (BST) 24/04/2007
70 per cent of hi-def movie sales on Blu-ray in 2007


Sales of Blu-ray discs have reached one million in less than a year, according to the Blu-ray Disc Association.

Blu-ray discs also accounted for 70 per cent of high-definition movie sales in the first quarter of 2007, with three in every four hi-def movies sold in March on the next-gen format.

"Sales of Blu-ray disc titles have taken off since the first of the year," commented Andy Parsons, chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association.

"Blu-ray discs have been outselling HD-DVD by more than two to one since the beginning of the year and the gap is steadily widening."

[Karlifornia]

I haven't been following, but I hear that it's just a matter of time before PS3 starts dominating the XBOX, but that the WII is a wildcard...any of that close to the truth?

[Big Fo]

It'll be interesting to see who has a price drop first, Microsoft or Sony.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

and 194K PS2's. Yes, the PS2 is so very much cheaper.. but one of my non FOFC friends who I copied those #'s to asked me if it was a sign that people are rejecting the next gen for current gen

That appears to be the case at this point. The 360 and PS3 are both getting a big old middle finger from the consumers at this point. The PS3 and the 360 simply aren't selling. The PS2 and Wii are flying off the shelves. I think Sony and MS are getting a big dose of market forces reality at this point. They're both going to have to make some big moves around October to give consumers a reason to buy the consoles as they head into the holidays.

[stevew]

A developer could make a ton of money right now developing for the Wii/PS2 platform, and porting them over(and vice versa). Obviously a game custom built for the Wii would be a lot better, but it wouldn't be too hard to add some motion control to already developing titles. I wonder how long the PS2 will remain viable, it could be for a lot longer than we would think.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Only 82,000 PS3 units sold? I don't think there is a way you can really explain how bad that is. It's just....bad. I know that April is another historically low month for console sales, but the PS3 is now officially putting up original XBox sales numbers.

And I think the 174k for the XBox 360 is the lowest 1 month units sales figure for them as well, so they're not exactly doing all that great either.

Things are getting ugly for Sony. Really ugly.

While MS is making a ton of mistakes as well and hurting themselves everytime, they have two things going for them.

1) They are making a profit on each of those 174k worth of sales.
2) This part is critical to remember: They didn't expect to beat the PS3 this go around. Their goal is only to decrease the Sony market share and make inroads. In Japan they are failing miserably with that. Everywhere else, they are doing better than they could have ever hoped.

Sony thought by now this console war wouls be over. Instead they are getting beat by the 360 at a 3 to 1 ratio and Nintendo is up over 2 to 1. And Sony is losing tons of money on every PS3 sold at this point. Tehy hoped to be making that up in software sales.

Every month the slaughter continues, even if it is only less than 100k win for MS, is another month that it's going to make it difficult for Sony to ever catch up.

And the bigtime exclusives are still in the favor of MS throughout the rest of the year. Shadowrun, Forza, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Halo 3. . . the list of exclusive A+ titles is staggering.

MLB is one hell of a game, but it aint saving the PS3. They need to get Lair and any other exclusive game they can get out stat.

[Butter]

PS3 needs to cut their prices.

If Microsoft was smart, they'd cut their prices first and widen the gap to try and finish Sony off. But, let's face it, they are Microsoft, so ego comes first and smarts second.

[Ksyrup]

I bought a PS2 last year. I'm a casual gamer. We only own maybe 6 games, and a couple of those are just for the kids. There was, and still is, no reason for us to spend so much money on a gaming system that I only use occasionally. I hope these sales numbers extend the life of the PS2, though, so that we get more new games for a bit longer. But at this point, with Guitar Hero and NCAA Football 07, I'm pretty much set.

I chose the PS2 strictly on price and game choices. I don't really care about cutting edge graphics. Of course, I don't care about whatever motion crap the Wii offers, either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Sony thought by now this console war would be over.

Interesting. I hadn't seen any analysts or Sony comments that indicated that they thought even last fall that the console war would be over by this point in time. Would love to read those articles if you have time to track them down.

As bad as Sony is doing month-to-month right now, it's even more shocking that this console war is still far from over. Here's the comment from NPD's Anita Frasier, who is involved with the market analysis of the actual numbers......

"Undoubtedly the sales results are not encouraging to date, but I for one am not counting out the PS3," she said. "While there has been good content available for the platform, there hasn't yet been the 'killer' title that tends to drive hardware sales acquisition among the broader audience. As the content ramps up, I'm confident the hardware sales will too. Rather than revisit this each and every month, particularly as we head into traditionally slower months of the year, I think we should really wait to see what the picture looks like in 6 months. Everything will be much clearer then."

Her comment is very similar to what EF27 and I had discussed in another thread. If we get to Christmas and Sony hasn't made some kind of a move with some major games or a price cut, that's the time to start worrying.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting. I hadn't seen any analysts or Sony comments that indicated that they thought even last fall that the console war would be over by this point in time. Would love to read those articles if you have time to track them down.

As bad as Sony is doing month-to-month right now, it's even more shocking that this console war is still far from over. Here's the comment from NPD's Anita Frasier, who is involved with the market analysis of the actual numbers......



Her comment is very similar to what EF27 and I had discussed in another thread. If we get to Christmas and Sony hasn't made some kind of a move with some major games or a price cut, that's the time to start worrying.

But how are they going to make a move? What signs are there that they are going to start dominating at Christmastime?

They are in huge trouble.

[Greyroofoo]

Does anyone find it interesting that the 360 version of Guitar Hero 2 outsold the PS2 version? Ditto with spiderman

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But how are they going to make a move? What signs are there that they are going to start dominating at Christmastime?

There's no signs at this point. That's the reason I stated that they have to make a move by October. Judging from the comments of the NPD rep, they're looking for a similar move and are expecting exactly that. Obviously that move has to be a price cut and/or a major push of content to jump-start the console.

Honestly, it makes no sense to make the price cut now during the slow sales period. Fall would be a much better time to do that. If they cut the price now, the buzz over the cut would likely wear out by the time the holiday season came around. That probably isn't something that gamers want to hear, but from a marketing and economic standpoint, it's a better move to hold off a few months on a price cut. A price cut now would only move an additional 30-40K units a month. A price cut in the fall at the start of the holiday season could net a much greater boost of console sales.

[Richard Weed]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But how are they going to make a move? What signs are there that they are going to start dominating at Christmastime?

They are in huge trouble.

I am by no means a Sony fanboy, but how can you make this statement? This is a marathon, not a sprint. The PS3 hasn't been released for a year and you're saying they're in huge trouble. Likewise, while the Wii has an ever-widening gap, they're still not out of the woods yet.

Microsoft may be stumbling with their Vista Live Gold packages and I think that's a mistake, but the 360 is steady for them. It's an acceptable Walk at this point.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Does anyone find it interesting that the 360 version of Guitar Hero 2 outsold the PS2 version? Ditto with spiderman

Yep, I found that interesting. I also agree with Troy's post. Sony is digging themselves too deep of a hole and microsoft has a much better lineup over the next 6-8 months. Sony needs to cut the price ASAP (and I've read articles of some analysts who think they will be cutting prices within the next month or two.)

[Richard Weed]

Funny story overheard in EB Games:

Customer: So nothing good is coming out this summer.
Manager: Yeah, everything good is coming out this fall: Halo 3, GTA 4, etc.
Customer: They should release Halo 3 in June.
Manager: Halo always comes out in September.

[Fidatelo]

PS3 is done like dinner. These problems will continue to snowball; the perception of the system among the general consumer is that it is over-priced and, almost more importantly, the 'loser' of this generation.

The only advantage PS3 has over 360 is Blu-ray, and anyone who really cares about that has already bought one. 360's advantage is Live, and that is far more important to your average gamer.

I'm also a little skeptical on the "all it needs is a killer exclusive" argument. When a system is $200-300 I can see a single game potentially convincing people to buy it. But at $600? You throw the game in there and you're at close to $700 to play one game. I think the PS3 will need not just a killer exclusive, but 2-3, or at least the promise that several more killers will be coming, and I don't think they will be able to provide that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Yep, I found that interesting. I also agree with Troy's post. Sony is digging themselves too deep of a hole and microsoft has a much better lineup over the next 6-8 months. Sony needs to cut the price ASAP (and I've read articles of some analysts who think they will be cutting prices within the next month or two.)

A pricing move in the next month or two would be fine for consumers (who doesn't like cheaper), but I'm not sure it does much for Sony unless they back it up with a further cut near the holidays or drop some big title releases during the holiday season. Dropping the price in June or July just merely allows them to indirectly admit their release mistakes. It doesn't save the console by any means.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

360's advantage is Live, and that is far more important to your average gamer.

I'm not sure there is a more overhyped 'advantage' than Xbox Live. The PS3 has shown that the online gaming experiece can be just as good as Live for $50 less a year. Some might say the interface in the marketplace is better. I'd argue that if you bought a console to hang around in either MS's or Sony's marketplace (or the Internet), you might as well have spent your money on a laptop computer, not a console. The amount of time that a gamer spends using that interface is very limited.

Having played a couple of games online on both the 360 and PS3, IMO Resistance and Motorstorm offer an online gaming experience on par with anything you'd find on Live. With some of the updates, the online game in Resistance is one of the best available. Obviously, most people don't know that because most people don't own a PS3, but that doesn't change the actual experience. Halo 3 will be interesting to see if they can provide as good of an online experience as Resistance.

Also, in reference to the 'average gamer' tag you used, the 'average gamer' doesn't even play games online. Don't let the figures around Live and the PS3 fool you when they say that '70% of gamers are online' or other similar statements. 70% of gamers don't play games online. A lot of those people are only on to get system updates or buy games for their system's "virtual console".

[stevew]

What do you guys consider the "sweet spot" for PS3 pricing? Like around 300 bucks?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

What do you guys consider the "sweet spot" for PS3 pricing? Like around 300 bucks?

Let's assume that MS drops the Core console completely, drops the Premium box to $299 and drops the Elite box to $399. I think with the Blu-ray player being in the box, Sony could get away with a $399 price point. That would be a situation where the purchaser is paying only $100 more to get a HD media player and wireless built-in. Anything more than that assuming that MS drops their price structure in the fall would be awfully hard to swallow.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's assume that MS drops the Core console completely, drops the Premium box to $299 and drops the Elite box to $399. I think with the Blu-ray player being in the box, Sony could get away with a $399 price point. That would be a situation where the purchaser is paying only $100 more to get a HD media player and wireless built-in. Anything more than that assuming that MS drops their price structure in the fall would be awfully hard to swallow.

Agreed. I think 400 is right about the sweet spot for pricing and would be enough of a price drop for me to get one this Christmas. However, I suspect they are going to try to get away with 500 which I think would be a mistake.

[moriarty]

This maybe a marathon not a sprint, but comparing the PS3 numbers to the PS2 numbers at this point in it's release ... well, the forecast isnt' encouraging. I'm starting to think the PS3 is just too hard to program for (why else is there such a lack of good games, and even games that cross platform havent' played as well on the PS3).

I still can't figure out who the hell are all these people still buying PS2's.

I agree with whomever said Microsoft should drop the price first and really put the squeeze on Sony. Microsoft should be smelling blood here, and they don't seem hungry for it.

[Ksyrup]

People like me are buying PS2s. People who want a gaming system, don't want to spend a lot for it, and can't justify spending $300-600 for a system that we'll probably play only occasionally and have a small collection of games for.

I know a few people who have bought one simply for Guitar Hero. That's it. And at $125 or whatever it's selling for these days, that's bearable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by moriarty

I'm starting to think the PS3 is just too hard to program for (why else is there such a lack of good games, and even games that cross platform havent' played as well on the PS3).

That isn't an issue. The issue is that there's no installed base, relatively speaking. There's games in development that have been repeatedly moved back. They're not being moved back because they need more time. They're being moved back because there's no way they'll make a good profit if they release their game with an installed base of just over 1M units. If all of the current stock were bought up today and there were 5M PS3's in the market, you wouldn't hear any of these 'it's too tough to design for' excuses from developers. They'd be too busy seeing dollar signs.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That isn't an issue. The issue is that there's no installed base, relatively speaking. There's games in development that have been repeatedly moved back. They're not being moved back because they need more time. They're being moved back because there's no way they'll make a good profit if they release their game with an installed base of just over 1M units. If all of the current stock were bought up today and there were 5M PS3's in the market, you wouldn't hear any of these 'it's too tough to design for' excuses from developers. They'd be too busy seeing dollar signs.

To me that makes little to no sense form a business standpoint. Dont' get me wrong, I understand the part about the installed base. But if you already have a game in development, you've spent money to develop it. You need revenues to offset that expenditure (else you go out of business). You can't spend $500K (or whatever) to develop a game this year then put in on ice for a year because unless you're EA you can't afford to wait. Now for games not yet in development ... maybe that plan works.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by moriarty

To me that makes little to no sense form a business standpoint. Dont' get me wrong, I understand the part about the installed base. But if you already have a game in development, you've spent money to develop it. You need revenues to offset that expenditure (else you go out of business). You can't spend $500K (or whatever) to develop a game this year then put in on ice for a year because unless you're EA you can't afford to wait. Now for games not yet in development ... maybe that plan works.

Most of the big developers do exactly what you're saying they can't do. They have to in this instance. The window for getting consumers to purchase games at the premium pricing level is very limited (maybe 4 weeks at a maximum). If they can take a $500K hit this year without any return investment, but then sell an additional 1M units during the next year at the release price as a result of waiting for an increase in user base, they'd do it without thinking twice. The opportunity cost if they release it now versus next year is just too much to give up.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

and 194K PS2's. Yes, the PS2 is so very much cheaper.. but one of my non FOFC friends who I copied those #'s to asked me if it was a sign that people are rejecting the next gen for current gen

that makes no sense at all. that's like rejecting automobiles for horse and carriage.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

It'll be interesting to see who has a price drop first, Microsoft or Sony.

if 360 cuts their price first that's pretty much the nail in the coffin for PS3. i'm waiting for a 360 price cut myself.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Richard Weed

I am by no means a Sony fanboy, but how can you make this statement? This is a marathon, not a sprint. The PS3 hasn't been released for a year and you're saying they're in huge trouble. Likewise, while the Wii has an ever-widening gap, they're still not out of the woods yet.

Microsoft may be stumbling with their Vista Live Gold packages and I think that's a mistake, but the 360 is steady for them. It's an acceptable Walk at this point.

It may be a marathon, but in a console race, the KEY part of the marathon is the start. That's where:

1) The maker of the console is losing money because of productions costs.
2) Game designers are looking at who to support and what level to support them at. (hint: they aren't going to put more money and time into support of one console, when the other two combined are slaughtering that console at a 5 to 1 clip overall)

3) Context is the critical thing a lot of people are missing here.

Sony - They are releasing the PS3 as a followup to one of the most beloved consoles of all time. Hell, people are still buying up PS2's left and right. But that hasn't helped them at all for the beginning months of the PS3. The PS2's popularity was fueled at the beginning by exclusive content not available anywhere else. (can you say EA?) They don't have the same advantage this time. You now have two competitors that are simply kicking their ass at the start. Even if they recover, their market share advantage is gone.

Nintendo - The laughing stock before E3. People are saying it's a gimmick and they'll fade. Ummm, that's fine, but they are laughing their asses off. They are beating the big 2 to a pulp. They've did everything they could have ever wanted already and they just started. It's good to be Nintendo.

Microsoft - Ask an MS guy what they wanted out of this and he'd have said "just let us gain some ground" They are going to gain ground. It'd take a minor miracle for them not to close the gap by the end of the cycle. They have a wave of exclusives, have bought out a ton of the Sony exclusives and have positioned themselves for a successful cycle.

So the point is. . . unless Sony not only catches up but starts to dominate, they lose this round. They went from being the undisputed king to having a three way battle.

Now my opinion is they won't catch the 360 or the Wii anytime soon, if ever. That would be the biggest disaster imaginable for them.

Context, not just the actual numbers, are important in judging this battle. This start is nothing short of disasterous for Sony and you can't spin it any other way.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let's assume that MS drops the Core console completely, drops the Premium box to $299 and drops the Elite box to $399. I think with the Blu-ray player being in the box, Sony could get away with a $399 price point. That would be a situation where the purchaser is paying only $100 more to get a HD media player and wireless built-in. Anything more than that assuming that MS drops their price structure in the fall would be awfully hard to swallow.

I think a $399 bundled with 2 games would do it for them. you gotta consider the blu-ray just might be a very expensive *mandatory* add-on that people just aren't willing to spring the extra money for. having a blu ray means you have to have a HD tv. you don't need a HDTV to get the most bang for your buck out of a 360. from Sony's point of view the blu ray is half the PS3's selling point, but when you're banking on a selling point you gotta make sure it's something people *need* to have and not something people can get away with not having. built-in wireless is cool though. all Sony needs to do is sell a core PS3 that doesn't have bluray in it and it'll start to pick up just fine.

[Ksyrup]

FWIW, I have our PS2 hooked up to our oldest TV in the basement. I don't even have the ability to hook it up to the internet. And I have an HDTV but have no interest in hooking up a console to it for any reason.

[SirFozzie]

Bill Harris chimes in with his 2 cents on the latest Sony #'s.

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2...down-down.html

An Interesting points..

"Remember, they shipped 5.5 million units from the mid-November U.S. launch (one week earlier in Japan) to the end of March. That's roughly four and a half months, or about 1.2 million units a month.

Shipping 11 million systems in the upcoming fiscal year represents just over 900,000 units a month.

Even if you factor in stockpiling the 300,000 launch units, Sony is still going to ship fewer units per month than they did in the just-concluded fiscal year.

Sony isn't accelerating their PS3 shipments. They're reducing them."

Not 100% sure I agree with it, that is why you build up supplies of any product before letting them out to market, because of the early rush.

But I do agree with what he says later..

"Of course, part of the reason for doing that is that at least two million of the units they've shipped haven't sold, which is a huge inventory overhang"

Basically, that 2 million or so "Shipped, but not Sold" number is very very bad for Sony.

[KWhit]

I'm loving my Wii.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

All Sony needs to do is sell a core PS3 that doesn't have bluray in it and it'll start to pick up just fine.

That's obviously not going to happen. The games are only on Blu-ray disks and that won't change.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Most of the big developers do exactly what you're saying they can't do. They have to in this instance. The window for getting consumers to purchase games at the premium pricing level is very limited (maybe 4 weeks at a maximum). If they can take a $500K hit this year without any return investment, but then sell an additional 1M units during the next year at the release price as a result of waiting for an increase in user base, they'd do it without thinking twice. The opportunity cost if they release it now versus next year is just too much to give up.

Really? Where's your proof of that information?

As a counter argument I would suggest that we constantly see games released too early due to the pressures for getting revenue. How many times have we heard those complaints on this board? How many "unfinished" games hit the market? Tons. The only time I've seen a game intentionally delayed is to perhaps align with the Xmas release schedule.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Context, not just the actual numbers, are important in judging this battle. This start is nothing short of disasterous for Sony and you can't spin it any other way.

It's also important to understand that this battle is far from over. I understand that we're extrapolating a bit at this point with only current knowledge, but you're assuming an awful lot if you think Sony is out of this by any means simply because of the slow start.

I'm guessing that you don't remember the comments about the PS2 at a similar point (i.e. 7 months out) in its life cycle. You'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between the comments that were made about the PS2 7 months post-release and the PS3 7 months post-release. Too expensive, no good games, Sony unresponsive......this list goes on. Not only that, they were dealing with some bad press involving some failures of the disc drives on the first-run consoles. There's been no technical issues at all on the PS3. It's just too expensive to produce any type of substantial demand.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Really? Where's your proof of that information?

As a counter argument I would suggest that we constantly see games released too early due to the pressures for getting revenue. How many times have we heard those complaints on this board? How many "unfinished" games hit the market? Tons. The only time I've seen a game intentionally delayed is to perhaps align with the Xmas release schedule.

Your making my point. The Wii is suffering from that to a great extent right now with their third party games. The reason that is occurring is that developers didn't have the games at a playable level, yet they released it anyway. Why? Because market forces say that the competition is extremely low (very few games ready for the Wii's growth) and the execs know with a huge base and limited choices that gamers are more likely to buy the games. Some of those developers have taken a financial hit though, as they relied a bit too much on the thought that consumers wouldn't be as picky with limited choices. Most Wii owners are content to just play Wii Sports and a Mario title and wait for new games.

We have a few developers/programmers on the board who I know will likely chime in regarding the holding of titles to wait for future installed base. Metal Gear Solid for the PS3 is a prime example. That game has been in development forever. If you think they really delayed that game an additional few months to tweak the game, I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas City that you'd be interested in. They'd rather wait a few months and reap the financial rewards that a larger installed base would afford them.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Metal Gear Solid for the PS3 is a prime example. That game has been in development forever. If you think they really delayed that game an additional few months to tweak the game, I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas City that you'd be interested in. They'd rather wait a few months and reap the financial rewards that a larger installed base would afford them.

Like I said, where is your proof they are holding MGS3 or any other title already in development up because of the PS3 installed base?

[path12]

Originally Posted by Richard Weed

I am by no means a Sony fanboy, but how can you make this statement? This is a marathon, not a sprint. The PS3 hasn't been released for a year and you're saying they're in huge trouble. Likewise, while the Wii has an ever-widening gap, they're still not out of the woods yet.

Dude, the Game Boy is outselling the PS3. I think trouble is an accurate description.

I don't have a console, but put me in the camp that is kicking around the idea of a PS2. I can get it for around 100 bucks, there's a ton of games and I'm going to remain mostly a PC guy anyway.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm guessing that you don't remember the comments about the PS2 at a similar point (i.e. 7 months out) in its life cycle. You'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between the comments that were made about the PS2 7 months post-release and the PS3 7 months post-release. Too expensive, no good games, Sony unresponsive......this list goes on. Not only that, they were dealing with some bad press involving some failures of the disc drives on the first-run consoles. There's been no technical issues at all on the PS3. It's just too expensive to produce any type of substantial demand.

First of all, I don't recall anyone, saying the PS2 was a complete bust at this phase of it's lifecycle. Just compare the PS2 sales at 7 months vs. those of the PS3 ... they're not even comparable. I dont' see how you can make a comparison between the customer responses to both systems.

To use Bill Harris' numbers (based on industry analyst forecasts) they're now predicting the PS3 to sell 25 million less units than the PS2 in the first 5 years of production. Tough to draw that parallel between systems.

I'm not saying the PS3 can't still make a comeback, but if you dont' see the disaster clouds here, you're blind or drinking the Kool-Aid.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Agreed. I think 400 is right about the sweet spot for pricing and would be enough of a price drop for me to get one this Christmas. However, I suspect they are going to try to get away with 500 which I think would be a mistake.

I would consider paying between $300-400 for a PS3. It's not like this economics lesson hasn't been taught before. There's no way in the world I'd ever pay $500+ for a game system.