November Console Sales Numbers

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Your comedy routine is nearly as good as Carrot Top. Really, I mean it.

Are you talking Carrot Top pre-steroids or post-steroids?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Bee

Are you talking Carrot Top pre-steroids or post-steroids?

Both.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Did you read the article? What did you disagree with in the analysis?

Pretty much everything.


The fact that they don't think Nintendo's stock will continue to rise is ridiculous. With the fact that Nintendo is going to own probably 70%+ of the market at the end of this, $70 for their stock is way low.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Pretty much everything.


The fact that they don't think Nintendo's stock will continue to rise is ridiculous. With the fact that Nintendo is going to own probably 70%+ of the market at the end of this, $70 for their stock is way low.

Once again, a bit fuzzy on your numbers analysis. The value of a stock has no relevance to whether it is a good stock or not. A $70 stock could be a terrible stock or it could be a great stock. Similarly, a $30 stock might be a stock on the downturn or it may be a stock who just had a 4:1 stock split and was previously valued at $120.

I don't doubt that the Wii will own the majority of the market share if you lump it in with the HD current-gen consoles, but I don't see it reaching a 70%+ market share. Both the 360 and PS3 will have growth levels when their prices come down over the next year or two.

[Synovia]

[quote=Mizzou B-ball fan;1617709

I don't doubt that the Wii will own the majority of the market share if you lump it in with the HD current-gen consoles, but I don't see it reaching a 70%+ market share. Both the 360 and PS3 will have growth levels when their prices come down over the next year or two.[/quote]


yes, they'll grow. The PS2 is at what, 125M now? The NES sold 60M. I wouldn't be surprised to see this generation sell 200M+ consoles, and if it did, I would be shocked to see less than 120M Wiis.

Once again, a bit fuzzy on your numbers analysis. The value of a stock has no relevance to whether it is a good stock or not. A $70 stock could be a terrible stock or it could be a great stock. Similarly, a $30 stock might be a stock on the downturn or it may be a stock who just had a 4:1 stock split and was previously valued at $120.

Completely wrong. Unless theres a stock split, $70 per share is low for what Nintendo will be worth in a year.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by TroyF

On January 3, 2007, Nintendo closed the day with their stock price at $32.44. As the market closed on Friday, their stock was at $72.44

They've lost about $5 a share in the last couple of weeks with some idiots dropping off board and probably some people thinking the stock has peaked, but the growth rate in their stock will sitll be over 100% this year. (just a quick FYI, that's kinda good)

Somehow, I think Nintendo is gonna come out of this ok.

I strongly considered buying some Nintendo stock at the beginning of the year and didn't. I'm kicking myself for that now. I wish all of my stocks and companies could be in such a crisis mode.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Completely wrong. Unless theres a stock split, $70 per share is low for what Nintendo will be worth in a year.

Exactly my point. A stock split has been rumored for a few months now. With that said, the value of the stock hasn't changed whether you have 1 stock at $70 or two at $35. It's the same value.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I strongly considered buying some Nintendo stock at the beginning of the year and didn't. I'm kicking myself for that now. I wish all of my stocks and companies could be in such a crisis mode.

Agreed. It's a shame because it could have been double that value if they actually would have planned their supply channels correctly.

[SirFozzie]

What's the matter, Mizzou, your corporate overlords at Sony let you know that unless Sony makes a huge comeback they won't need as many shills?

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. It's a shame because it could have been double that value if they actually would have planned their supply channels correctly.

How embarrassing would that have been for Sony? Its one thing to be doubled up by a "last-gen" console... imagine if they'd been triple sold?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

yes, they'll grow. The PS2 is at what, 125M now? The NES sold 60M. I wouldn't be surprised to see this generation sell 200M+ consoles, and if it did, I would be shocked to see less than 120M Wiis.

It's a good illustration. You said that the Wii would sell 70%+ of the total number of consoles. Let's assume 150M Wii's sold for the sake of argument. In order for the Wii to hold 70% of the market under that scenario, the 360 and PS3 would have to sell less than 60M units combined. There's no way that scenario will occur. The 360 and PS3 will sell more units than that over the course of this lifecycle.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. It's a shame because it could have been double that value if they actually would have planned their supply channels correctly.

Right, but that only matters if it actually effects "total consoles sold" which I don't think it will.

The Wii is JUST NOW coming out with actual Wii games, and not GC ports. They've sold $16M consoles on essentially Wii Sports and a GC game with motion controls slapped on (Z:TP). Game designers are just now starting to get games out that were developed for the Wii (and not the slapped together crap they made when they realized they'd missed the boat).


This is going to get a whole lot worse for MS/Sony before it gets better.


Don't forget, the biggest knock on the Wii has been "no games". Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers Brawl come out early next year, and those will make a huge difference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

How embarrassing would that have been for Sony? Its one thing to be doubled up by a "last-gen" console... imagine if they'd been triple sold?

There's a lot of time left in the current lifecycle. Calling the war is highly premature at this point. But if we use your current point logic, there's no doubt that Microsoft and Sony would have been lambasted right now if Nintendo would have properly planned for the demand of their console. They're missing out on revenue and allowing Microsoft and Sony to stay in a race that they both should have soundly lost by now. Instead, Sony and Microsoft are in a position because of the supply constraint of their competitor to even beat the Wii in some markets they had no business winning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Don't forget, the biggest knock on the Wii has been "no games". Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers Brawl come out early next year, and those will make a huge difference.

What difference are those games going to make? I agree that the Nintendo fans love those franchises, but you can't sell anymore consoles than you can build. Also, I'm not sure either of those franchises listed above is going to move major console numbers even if you take away the supply issues. First, most of the fans of those games already own a Wii. Second, it's similar to the Halo release. That game is the defining franchise on the 360, but the 360 only received a 250K boost in N/A sales in the release month over previous month sales. I'm not sure you can expect much more than that from Mario Kart and I wouldn't expect a major boost from SSBB at all.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What difference are those games going to make? I agree that the Nintendo fans love those franchises, but you can't sell anymore consoles than you can build. Also, I'm not sure either of those franchises listed above is going to move major console numbers even if you take away the supply issues. First, most of the fans of those games already own a Wii. Second, it's similar to the Halo release. That game is the defining franchise on the 360, but the 360 only received a 250K boost in N/A sales in the release month over previous month sales. I'm not sure you can expect much more than that from Mario Kart and I wouldn't expect a major boost from SSBB at all.

I don't expect a boost. I expect Nintendo to continue selling at full capacity deep into the year, and maybe into next holiday season. I wouldn't be surprised to see Wii hit 35M units before either one of the other consoles hits 20M.


We're talking about a console that is going to sell 17M units in its first year. It'll sell another 17M+ this year. The Wii has 42% market share right now after only one year (360 38%, 2 years, PS3 19%). Yes, the PS3 will probably pass the 360 in monthly sales, but it wont catch it in total anytime soon, but while this is happening, the Wii is going to run away with this thing.

[Kodos]

It's hard to boost your console sales when you can't keep up with demand. So who cares if great games come out for the Wii? Still gonna sell the exact same number of consoles.

When PS3 and 360 hit mass-market prices, they will start to close the margin on Nintendo. Not that they will ever catch it. But they will have a higher percentage of the market than they do now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

It's hard to boost your console sales when you can't keep up with demand. So who cares if great games come out for the Wii? Still gonna sell the exact same number of consoles.

When PS3 and 360 hit mass-market prices, they will start to close the margin on Nintendo. Not that they will ever catch it. But they will have a higher percentage of the market than they do now.

I would guess that the Wii price isn't going to drop much if at all by the next holiday season. It'll be at least $200 by next fall, if not still $250. Conversely, I'd expect the 360 to have a $200-250 price point on its base console and the PS3 base console to be priced at $300 by the next holiday season. They should be able to make some pretty significant cost reductions on both systems by next fall.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a lot of time left in the current lifecycle. Calling the war is highly premature at this point. But if we use your current point logic, there's no doubt that Microsoft and Sony would have been lambasted right now if Nintendo would have properly planned for the demand of their console. They're missing out on revenue and allowing Microsoft and Sony to stay in a race that they both should have soundly lost by now. Instead, Sony and Microsoft are in a position because of the supply constraint of their competitor to even beat the Wii in some markets they had no business winning.

I really don't think Nintendo had any idea how much demand there would be for the Wii. I'm sure they hoped it would sell like hotcakes, but I don't really blame them for not spending tons of money gearing up huge amounts of production for something they really couldn't have known was going to be so popular. You can fault them I think for not ramping up production at this point, but even that without knowing the costs of increasing the production output vs how many sales they actually lose (compared to how many sales are just delayed) is still a tough argument to make especially for us sitting on the sidelines. It's easy for analysts to say they are leaving money on the table because of production issues, but how much of that money is actually lost vs how much is just delayed? Also, what are the costs of increasing production to meet demand? How long will demand continue at the current rate? Can the cost of increasing production be offset long-term if demand levels off?

I think it was an article you posted about the time that Sony released the PS3 where it talked about how there were concerns about Sony not being able to meet the initial demand for the PS3. If I remember correctly, it explained in the article that it was the best financial option for Sony to maintain a steady stream of production throughout the life cycle and not start up a bunch of production facilities that would have to be closed once initial demand leveled off. I suspect the same thing is applicable to Nintendo with the exception that they weren't really expecting demand to reach anything close to what it did. Hindsight being 20-20, it's easy to criticize them now but things could have gone the other way where they ramped up production and then demand fell off. The difference being, that what they did ended up making them less money than optimal, with the other option they could have lost money.

[Eaglesfan27]

Most people are talking about them not ramping up production, but there was a recent article I read somewhere (here?) that stated that Nintendo has almost doubled production capacity in the last 6 months and were working towards upping it more in 08. As it is, capacity is almost 2 million units per month and they are working towards pushing it up over 2.5 million. There is no reason to think that they won't sell 20 plus million units next year worldwide which will continue to blow away the PS3 and the 360.

[Bee]

That's pretty impressive if they've doubled production and still can't meet demand. I had no idea they had done that.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Bee

That's pretty impressive if they've doubled production and still can't meet demand. I had no idea they had done that.

They're building consoles faster than anyone has ever built them before.


They've sold 17M units in the first year. I don't think any other console has ever broken 9M. Theres no way they could have expected to double the best selling console ever.

[gstelmack]

The whole point is that demand for the Wii is unprecedented.

[bignej]

Don't stocks typically drop during the holidays. Maybe some people sold their Nintendo stock so they could buy a Wii.

[Eaglesfan27]

I thought it was the last 6 months, but it was actually since the launch that the increase in production occurred. They haven't said they will increase production further, but there is a lot of speculation they will (and it would seem to make sense for them to do so.) Here is the article from Gamespot. Also, of possible interest to any Wii hunters is that Gamestop's across the nation will be giving out rain checks on the 20th or 21st that guarantee a Wii by January. I'll probably take advantage of that as my wife's grandparents want one to play. The only other system they have ever played is the old Nintendo which they had bought for my wife when she was a kid.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6184028...ewstop;title;5

[stevew]

The rain-check thing is probably going to be a disaster most likely. What are they promising....maybe 8-10 cases per store? Those rainchecks will likely be a dent for the first 20 minutes of opening, and then they'll just have more of a negative feedback reaction for the next 2 days as people thought it would be an easy process or something.

I wonder why gamestop, anyways, didn't just start their raincheck policy a long time ago. Where you could just prepay, get on a list, and get one eventually.

"Many tens of thousands" of consoles, as referenced in the article, divided by 3000 stores equals maybe 30 units per store at the very most.

[astrosfan64]

Question for Mr Sony. How much better can the graphics be on PS3 when compared to a 360?

I haven't seen a game with graphics as good as MLB 08 the show. I was looking at my Madden 08 for 360 last night. The graphics really aren't that good. The stands look bleh, the grass/turf isn't that great and the models aren't fantastic.

I'm not sure how much better they can get that to look and keep it at 60FPS on the 360. I was figuring they were pretty much capped out in terms of graphics.

Is it feasible that the PS3 could have a game that looks much better then the 360?

Could Madden 2009 or 2010 blow away a 360 version?

This is assuming that companies learn how to develop for the PS3 version.

Because Madden 2k8 on 360 or PS3 really don't look next gen at all.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Right, but that only matters if it actually effects "total consoles sold" which I don't think it will.

The Wii is JUST NOW coming out with actual Wii games, and not GC ports. They've sold $16M consoles on essentially Wii Sports and a GC game with motion controls slapped on (Z:TP). Game designers are just now starting to get games out that were developed for the Wii (and not the slapped together crap they made when they realized they'd missed the boat).


This is going to get a whole lot worse for MS/Sony before it gets better.


Don't forget, the biggest knock on the Wii has been "no games". Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers Brawl come out early next year, and those will make a huge difference.

1) "Worse" really depends on who you are. Sony is getting devastated by this. No other way to spin it. MS? meh. If you'd told them they'd be a solid #2 at the end of '07 with over 15 million consoles sold and 38% of the world market, they'd have been ok. I'm not being an MS sympathizer here, I just think people need to put into perspective where MS was at the start of this generation of consoles.

MS had under 25 million sold for the original Xbox. The PS2 sold 120 million worldwide and about 40 million in the US. The GameCube sold about 13 million units in the US and 22 million worldwide. So last gen, MS's market share looked like this:

US - 32%
World - 15%

Currently, the numbers look like this:

US - 48%
World - 38%

Nintendo will keep eating away at both of those figures, but unless complete and total disaster strikes, the 360 is going to make huge gains in market share. That's really all they wanted to do with this console. Gain some market share and turn a profit on it by the second or third year.

They are going to accomplish both goals. Do they like that one "king" was replaced with another? Nope. But at the end of the day, they are doing what they set out to do.

Sony, as has been mentioned numerous times is the one getting killed here. They went from owning 71% of the market worldwide on the PS2 to HOPING to get out of last place by 2009. I can think of very few products in my lifetime that have fallen down that badly. Sony went from 71% market share to 19%.

Nintendo, of course, is the big winner. They are essentially going to swap places with Sony. Truly amazing stuff there.

2) As for games, Nintendo still has a lot of work to do there. I think software sales could be the achilles heel of the system. I think the 360 and PS3 are populated with owners who are going to buy a lot more software than the Wii owners are. I mean, a big % of their software sales still come from the sale of the Wii itself and games that come packaged with extra hardware. I know Smash Bro. and Mario Kart are going to rock. Virtually all Nintendo games do. I think the jury is still out on other software for the system and that's a question Nintendo needs answered going forward.

The hardware question for #1 is answered. Nintendo wins. Game. Set. Match.

The race for #2 in hardware is still ongoing, but I think MS is going to win that war. Mizzou thinks the PS3 will outsell the 360 by about 310k units a month over the next 24 and take over the lead. I just don't see how that happens. Maybe I'm wrong. . .

Software is where it gets interesting for me. I don't think that race is decided yet.

[astrosfan64]

One thing to note here, the Wii isn't a next gen system is it?

It is like in the middle of Current Gen and Next Gen. More powerful, gamecube with a new controller.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

One thing to note here, the Wii isn't a next gen system is it?

It is like in the middle of Current Gen and Next Gen. More powerful, gamecube with a new controller.

I think it is a next gen system. As other have said, it may not have next gen graphics, but it has a completely new innovative play style. However, who cares whether anyone classifies it as a next gen system or not. It was released around the same time as the PS3 and 360, and it is a direct competitor for market share. The bottom line is all that matters, not opinions about whether it is "next gen" or not.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

One thing to note here, the Wii isn't a next gen system is it?

It is like in the middle of Current Gen and Next Gen. More powerful, gamecube with a new controller.

The wii most certainly IS next generation. All the 360 is, is amore powerful XBox. No, the Wii isn't as powerful as the other two, but its pushing the envelope more than the other two are. The other two are essentially just faster reincarnations of the last generation.


I don't know if the PS3 will catch the 360. I think sometime next year it will pass the 360 in sales/month, and then hold that lead and expand it. HD-DVD is losing, and the PS3 is more powerful (by leaps and bounds) than the 360.

MS had a chance to basically bury Sony here, but Nintendo went and screwed everything up for them. Nintendo took enough sales from MS to keep it reasonably close. If the Wii doesn't show up, I think we're looking at 20M or so 360s to 5M PS3s, and things are starting to spiral out of control. MS will (and should be) happy with this generation, but Sony has to realize they dodged a bullet.

The longer the PS3/XBox hang around, the more the PS3's ample power is going to tip things. Sony should be happy that Nintendo kept MS from making them irrelevant.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I think it is a next gen system. As other have said, it may not have next gen graphics, but it has a completely new innovative play style. However, who cares whether anyone classifies it as a next gen system or not. It was released around the same time as the PS3 and 360, and it is a direct competitor for market share. The bottom line is all that matters, not opinions about whether it is "next gen" or not.

That is actually a pretty decent point.

But, doesn't the fact that the PS2 is still selling well weigh into this discussion then? PS2 still has them all buried.

I think the deciding factor isn't how many consoles are sold, but how many total games are sold on each console.

I would venture to guess that XBOX 360 game sales demolish the Wii and PS3.

e.g.
Number of total XBOX 360 games sold over the last 2 years is much greater then what the total games for PS3 and Wii have sold over the last 2 years.

Is there a number for that?

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Synovia

The wii most certainly IS next generation. All the 360 is, is amore powerful XBox. No, the Wii isn't as powerful as the other two, but its pushing the envelope more than the other two are. The other two are essentially just faster reincarnations of the last generation.


I don't know if the PS3 will catch the 360. I think sometime next year it will pass the 360 in sales/month, and then hold that lead and expand it. HD-DVD is losing, and the PS3 is more powerful (by leaps and bounds) than the 360.

MS had a chance to basically bury Sony here, but Nintendo went and screwed everything up for them. Nintendo took enough sales from MS to keep it reasonably close. If the Wii doesn't show up, I think we're looking at 20M or so 360s to 5M PS3s, and things are starting to spiral out of control. MS will (and should be) happy with this generation, but Sony has to realize they dodged a bullet.

The longer the PS3/XBox hang around, the more the PS3's ample power is going to tip things. Sony should be happy that Nintendo kept MS from making them irrelevant.

Good Point my origonal post was pretty dumb when you think about it that way.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

...and the PS3 is more powerful (by leaps and bounds) than the 360.

No, it's not. The architecture for each is quite different, and as multiple developers have pointed out both the PS3 and 360 have their comparative strengths and weaknesses. Claiming that the PS3 is more powerful, to say nothing of more powerful by "leaps and bounds" is dubious at best. Most developers would tell you that, in a general sense, the PS3 is slightly more powerful overall.

The PS3 may eventually catch the 360 (though I have my doubts about this), but if it does it will be because Blu-Ray makes some serious inroads in cutting into Standard Def DVD sales and exclusives start tipping in a big way towards the PS3.

Microsoft won't give up their sizable lead on the PS3 without a major fight - I expect them to start getting aggressive with price cuts if the PS3 keeps making up ground in monthly hardware sales.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

One thing to note here, the Wii isn't a next gen system is it?

It is like in the middle of Current Gen and Next Gen. More powerful, gamecube with a new controller.

You do realize that the XBox 360 is a more powerful XBox, right? And the Playstation 3 is a more po...ah hell why do I even bother?

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

You do realize that the XBox 360 is a more powerful XBox, right? And the Playstation 3 is a more po...ah hell why do I even bother?

I already admitted that my post was dumb . Good point.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

No, it's not. The architecture for each is quite different, and as multiple developers have pointed out both the PS3 and 360 have their comparative strengths and weaknesses. Claiming that the PS3 is more powerful, to say nothing of more powerful by "leaps and bounds" is dubious at best. Most developers would tell you that, in a general sense, the PS3 is slightly more powerful overall.

The PS3 may eventually catch the 360 (though I have my doubts about this), but if it does it will be because Blu-Ray makes some serious inroads in cutting into Standard Def DVD sales and exclusives start tipping in a big way towards the PS3.

Microsoft won't give up their sizable lead on the PS3 without a major fight - I expect them to start getting aggressive with price cuts if the PS3 keeps making up ground in monthly hardware sales.

yes, the PS3 is leaps and bounds more powerful than the 360. Its just a different architecture than what people are used to programming on. The PS3 is more powerful than the 360 in the same way that a PentiumD running at 2.2ghz is more powerful than a P4 running at 3.5. Its got more power, but code has to specifically be tailored to it.


The PS3 is more powerful. (most)Designers to this point have been too lazy to change their tools.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Synovia

The wii most certainly IS next generation. All the 360 is, is amore powerful XBox. No, the Wii isn't as powerful as the other two, but its pushing the envelope more than the other two are. The other two are essentially just faster reincarnations of the last generation.


I don't know if the PS3 will catch the 360. I think sometime next year it will pass the 360 in sales/month, and then hold that lead and expand it. HD-DVD is losing, and the PS3 is more powerful (by leaps and bounds) than the 360.

MS had a chance to basically bury Sony here, but Nintendo went and screwed everything up for them. Nintendo took enough sales from MS to keep it reasonably close. If the Wii doesn't show up, I think we're looking at 20M or so 360s to 5M PS3s, and things are starting to spiral out of control. MS will (and should be) happy with this generation, but Sony has to realize they dodged a bullet.

The longer the PS3/XBox hang around, the more the PS3's ample power is going to tip things. Sony should be happy that Nintendo kept MS from making them irrelevant.

1) A programmer on our own boards has made the point time and time again the the "power" of the PS3 is just different than the power of the 360. It's not ahead by leaps and bounds. I played COD4 on the 360 the other day (I'm reviewing it for the PS3) and it was the same damned game. People make it out to be lazy programmers, but that's just not reality.

2) You are right on the Wii. It's certainly a next gen system. It may not have HD graphics, but that doesn't mean crap. It's certainly a next gen system.

3) I don't know how any Sony executive can possibly think they "dodged a bullet" here. Even if they scrape back into the game and take the lead at some point, their market share has deterorated and they won't get that back in this round.

You can say what you want about them being able to do it or how MS could have put them away or blah, blah, blah. That doesn't change the fact that Sony went from owning the market to competing for market share and hoping not to end up in third place.

Yes, MS screwed up a lot of things. Yes, Mizzou, Nintendo screwed up with teh demand issue. But Sony screwed up far more than any of them put together. They didn't dodge bullets. Hell, they didn't even try to run for cover. They were like a bunch of bad AI that runs into a wall until you shoot em in the back of the head. The sad thing is that many of us here (me being one of the most vocal), called this thing the second we heard the price of the PS3. It was so obvious what they were doing to themselves. Yet a lot of the gaming world didn't bother to pay attention to the tea leaves.

In fact, many of the same things being said about the PS3 in early December of 2006 are being said now as reasons why it'll catch the 360. (More power, Final Fantasy, Price cuts coming, Dominance in Japan) Well, we're a year later. FF is a year from being released. More power hasn't come to fruition. (people aren't buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray? I'm stunned, who'd of thunk it?) The price cuts have arrived and only a minor dent has been made to the 360. (OMG, 50k units on sales over a million, the sky is falling) The dominance in Japan is there, but nobody really figured on it getting it's ass handed to it this Christmas by the 360 in the US, did they?

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

e.g.
Number of total XBOX 360 games sold over the last 2 years is much greater then what the total games for PS3 and Wii have sold over the last 2 years.

Of course it has. The longer a system is around, the more games there are, the more games it will sell.


That being said, the Wii is absolutely demolishing what the 360 was doing at this time in its cycle (software and hardware wise).

[Synovia]

"You can say what you want about them being able to do it or how MS could have put them away or blah, blah, blah. That doesn't change the fact that Sony went from owning the market to competing for market share and hoping not to end up in third place. "

I'm not saying thats not true. What I'm saying is that if Nintendo hadn't shown up and blown the market apart, and if MS hadn't had the RROD problems, Sony wouldn't be in third, they'd be irrelevant.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Synovia

yes, the PS3 is leaps and bounds more powerful than the 360. Its just a different architecture than what people are used to programming on. The PS3 is more powerful than the 360 in the same way that a PentiumD running at 2.2ghz is more powerful than a P4 running at 3.5. Its got more power, but code has to specifically be tailored to it.


The PS3 is more powerful. (most)Designers to this point have been too lazy to change their tools.

And your qualifications for saying this are what? I work in the industry, I talk to programmers, I read what other programmers write (some of which has been posted on this forum) - and what you say is not corroborated by what I hear and read.

Again, the PS3 may have an overall edge in power, but any claim that such an edge is in "leaps and bounds" is utter bullshit.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I already admitted that my post was dumb . Good point.

OK, sorry I missed it or was reading/posting when you posted it. Sorry for piling on.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Synovia

yes, the PS3 is leaps and bounds more powerful than the 360. Its just a different architecture than what people are used to programming on. The PS3 is more powerful than the 360 in the same way that a PentiumD running at 2.2ghz is more powerful than a P4 running at 3.5. Its got more power, but code has to specifically be tailored to it.

The PS3 is more powerful. (most)Designers to this point have been too lazy to change their tools.

B.S., you have no clue what you are talking about. Except for the last statement, where you're just spouting MBBF propaganda from a few months ago.

The PS3 has 7 very fast FPUs and one pretty fast CPU. The Xbox360 has 3 pretty fast CPUs. For certain floating-point-but-not-memory-intensive stuff, the PS3 is faster. For general programs, the 360 is faster.

The PS3 tends to be faster at system things: low-level physics, low-level graphics, pathfinding.

The 360 tends to be faster at game things: managing physics objects, scene graph management, AI goal planning, etc.

The PS3 will tend to be faster / prettier for arcade-type titles with lots of physics and 3D graphics.

The 360 will tend to faster / deeper for more robust games, handling more complex AIs and simulations for example.

You can only make the claim that one is faster when talking about specific algorithms. You may also be able to make the claim for certain games. But you can pick cases that show either one is faster than the other one.

The programming difficulties come in taking advantage of the PS3's special FPUs. They have very specific things they do well, and access to limited memory, which requires special coding and care. And you have to deal with their limitations; there are specific things they do very well, and many things they can't do at all. Leaving you 1 processor which is essentially equivalent to the 3 sitting in the 360 for everything else.

[BrianD]

I'm not sure how to respond to Greg's post, but the passion and factyness of it makes me feel like some kind of response is necessary.

[dawgfan]

Synovia = pwned

[Groundhog]

Honestly, is there a single game out on either system (PS3 or 360) that couldn't be released on the other?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The PS3 may eventually catch the 360 (though I have my doubts about this), but if it does it will be because Blu-Ray makes some serious inroads in cutting into Standard Def DVD sales and exclusives start tipping in a big way towards the PS3.

I will say that the profusion of BOGO sales on Amazon and at other retailers mean that my Blu-ray Disc collection is already nearly half the size of my DVD collection. I can't even imagine how big it would be if a) Warner's classic library were appearing on BD, and b) it looked good enough to convince me to part with my standard-def Bogart DVDs.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I will say that the profusion of BOGO sales on Amazon and at other retailers mean that my Blu-ray Disc collection is already nearly half the size of my DVD collection. I can't even imagine how big it would be if a) Warner's classic library were appearing on BD, and b) it looked good enough to convince me to part with my standard-def Bogart DVDs.

You're at the bleeding edge though Sack. Look at the overall sales of HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray disks monthly compared to SD DVD sales.

DVD was such a leap in quality and convenience over VHS that many people started buying and collecting movies that hadn't done so previously. I think the leap from SD DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray isn't enough for many people to justify jumping in to a new format and worrying they'll pick one that won't end up lasting.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're at the bleeding edge though Sack. Look at the overall sales of HD-DVD's and Blu-Ray disks monthly compared to SD DVD sales.

I am, but I'm not. Like, yeah, I'm a tech guy, but not one of my Blu-ray movies have been purchased at anything close to full price. I picked up Die Hard 2 and Die Hard 3 on Amazon's two-day BOGO this weekend. Total price paid, $27. I'm enough of a Die Hard fan to pick up those two movies in high def at DVD prices.

Not anywhere near enough to pay the $28-35 I've seen them go for at retail.

DVD was such a leap in quality and convenience over VHS that many people started buying and collecting movies that hadn't done so previously. I think the leap from SD DVD to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray isn't enough for many people to justify jumping in to a new format and worrying they'll pick one that won't end up lasting.

It's partly the fear of survival and partly the cost. The price of the players are coming down, but in a lot of cases you can still get 2-3 DVDs for the cost of one HD-DVD or BD film. When the prices hit DVD prices for either format, and do so consistently, you'll see it explode.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) A programmer on our own boards has made the point time and time again the the "power" of the PS3 is just different than the power of the 360. It's not ahead by leaps and bounds. I played COD4 on the 360 the other day (I'm reviewing it for the PS3) and it was the same damned game. People make it out to be lazy programmers, but that's just not reality.

Couple of points of clarification here as there's some inaccuracies.

1. People don't complain about 'lazy programmers' when both of the games are the same. They complain when the port to one system is inferior to the other system when most developers have no problem creating identical games. COD4 is a perfect example of a developer who created the same game on both systems with no noticable difference. People will never complain about that.

2. Just because the game is the same on both systems does not prove that a system is more/less powerful than the other. Developers create multiplatform games to look alike to avoid any feelings by the owners of one or the other console that they got a lesser version of the game. They do that to avoid reactions like the one that EA received last year on some of their games which had obvious flaws in the PS3 version.

I'd agree that the difference in technology is not near the 'leaps and bounds' level that the other post cited.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

B.S., you have no clue what you are talking about. Except for the last statement, where you're just spouting MBBF propaganda from a few months ago.

Which 'propaganda' would that be concerning that last statement? I understand that you are a programmer, but the only company that I've consistently hammered regarding this issues is EA for their sub-par ports to the PS3. The media is full of reports about that 'propaganda' and even the EA execs have admitted that they screwed that situation up. Outside of that developer, I haven't seen any multiplatform games of note where the two versions were all that different.