Edge: PS4 9 million "sold", Harrison: X1 "north of 5 million"
- Thread starter DriedMangoes
- Start date
- Status
D I said it as it is.. you should know I'm not hating on Xbox (enjoy One's exclusives more) just being realistic man :-/
What are the awesome AAA games that PS4 have?PS4 have like 3 AAA exclusive so far;Infamous, Killzone, & Knack last I checked. Generous speaking, Infamous is good, & Killzone decent, Knack, well....
Yes PS4 is dominating, but I I find it hard to think it was because it has awesome AAA games. Just my opinion.
It shows what the power of marketing and controlling the discussion can do, price isn't the only problem MS had in it's first few months they also made far too many mistakes with the way they introduced the console and then continually tripping over their feet trying to repair the damage they had done. They never had a clear message or clear vision that resonated with the hardcore gamers who are always going to be the early adopters. They also haven't done a great job when it comes to marketing either which is something they excelled at with the 360, the "hype" that's out there right now for the Xbox One just isn't strong enough, the PS4 is still what more people are talking about and what more people are talking about getting if they haven't moved on to the new gen yet.
When it comes to exclusives neither console has a ton of options when it comes to AAA exclusives right now but they do have some decent choices and there are also several 3rd party games that are really good out there. There are also a lot of great things coming and from the end of this month through the Spring I think people complaining about a lack of games to play will finally start feeling good about the choices they have.
That is not what I'm saying. All I contended was the brand name isn't the ONLY reason, as Val suggested in his post.
Actually, you and I are contending something very similar... but I don't want to be misunderstood again, so I'll go deeper with my response:
Broadly, Sony's brand is popular, and well established. Additionally, the Playstation brand as it relates to gaming is certainly a strong brand. I haven't seen reports about how it's doing world-wide, but I'd be willing to bet it has a meaningful lead over the Xbox brand.
If the PS4 didn't have the Sony/PlayStation branding, I'm sure it wouldn't be doing as well as it is... but if Sony had done something disastrous like they did last gen (taking them from a distant 1st place world wide to 3rd place), the brand wouldn't have saved the system. The brand saved the PS3. It was pretty much the worst console last gen on nearly every level. Nintendo had the innovation on the control input as well as the younger gamers, Microsoft had the better hardware, better price, better games, more games, better services, etc... so if it weren't for the PS brand, PS3 would have very likely died.
This gen, the brand is giving a great product credibility in the marketplace that it wouldn't otherwise have. If IBM decided to jump into game consoles, and released a console that was spec for spec identical to the PS4, with identical services, libraries, etc... I have no doubt the PS4 would beat it handily.
...but the brand only goes so far, and last gen proved that. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that around half of the PS4 owners today bought the console mostly independently of the brand. I'd bet that they bought it because they're those buyers who don't really care about brand loyalty, they just want the best games for the best price, and based on Sony's messaging, PS4's faster GPU, and a lower price (until just a month ago), as well as cross plat games that clearly have a measurable edge over the competition - they bit. They're the same type of folks who had a PS2, but jumped ship to Xbox over PS3 because Xbox had more games, better games, better graphics, and lower price.
So is the brand important? You bet. Is it driving sales? Absolutely. Is it the only thing, or even the PRIMARY thing driving sales? I'd argue probably not. At least, not in the US (which is the biggest market). I think here in the States, consumers are smart, savvy, and willing to switch camps when it makes sense to them...
I think if you took everything that is Xbox One (hardware, software, services, etc.) and you put "PlayStation" on it, and then took everything that is PS4 and put "Xbox" on it, the numbers wouldn't be very different. That's my point. Both brands are strong world-wide. The PlayStation brand is probably stronger, but not significantly so (at least, I haven't seen evidence of that)... the driver behind the sales gap is (I think) just what Starseeker pointed out.
This seems clearly true. Sony's high grade exclusives right now really aren't keeping pace with Microsoft's.
I think the points you made earlier are obviously the biggest contributors to PS4's success:
1. Better price
2. Faster GPU, resulting in measurably better performing cross-plats
3. Better messaging than the competition (and even playing off of the competition's poor messaging strategically)
4. Better Indy story out the gate, which was more of a clever marketing tool than a real advantage
The combination of #1 and #2 is very powerful. To many who just look at the surface, it sure sounds a lot like a more powerful system for less money, and both seem to have fairly similar libraries of games (mostly third party games). While I don't think the perf gap has ever mattered from a functional standpoint (the games play and look the same, by all important measures), it's a powerful story to uninformed consumers... and without a huge suite of powerful AAA games on either side, Sony's box is a compelling and attractive offer.
I doubt many people rushed out to get a PS4 because of Killzone or Infamous... most probably looked at the next-gen options, weighed the pros and cons, and then got what seemed like the best deal for their hard earned dollar... and I doubt Sony's AAA offerings this gen played much a role in that deliberation. They're just pretty poor so far.
Flynn, I'm not saying the ps name is the only reason...I'm simply saying it's the primary reason. Last gen proved that.
Of course there are other reasons, but name brand is #1 reason. If you reversed hardware and name, PS4 would stil be ahead.
Again, going by last gen.
Of course there are other reasons, but name brand is #1 reason. If you reversed hardware and name, PS4 would stil be ahead.
Again, going by last gen.
And that's the nuance we disagree on.
Last gen proved that a brand can save a product from dying, even when it is worse than the competition, but it in no way "proves" the brand is the primary reason behind strong sales this gen. There's no proof that supports that claim, and I think your evidence is actually evidence to the contrary. PS2 was the biggest, best selling console of all time. PS3 lost half of Sony's market share. Xbox 360
Switch the names, and I don't think the numbers would be much different... but we can't prove it one way or the other, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there.
Something interesting to note:
PS2: Nearly 160 mil to date.
PS3: Around 80 mil to date.
Sony's market share plummeted -50%
Xbox Prime: roughly 25 mil to date.
Xbox 360: roughly 80 mil to date.
Microsoft's market share rose +300% (and continues to rise)
Even though last gen PS3 and X360 sold comparably, it was obviously a HUGE win for Microsoft, and a HUGE loss for Sony. Generation over generation, Microsoft's console soared with well over +300% in sales, and the 360 is still going. It may get up to 100 million, quadrupling Xbox prime's numbers.
The PS3 was a disaster for Sony. They LOST -50% of their market share.
This generation, the Xbox One is selling better than the Xbox 360 did, so it looks like even with the horrific messaging and steep competition, it's on its way to being a better selling console than its predecessor... which is a win for MS for sure.
All things considered, MS is in a fantastic spot, and Sony's recovery from the disastrous PS3 is fantastic. It looks to be a healthy generation.
I don't usually join in this stupid competition, but one can wonder why Sony has not stated the supposed 8 million or 9 million sales mark in their statistics-filled E3 conference. It's a slow season for both companies, so assuming that only PS4 sold while XB1 is chugging slow is kinda biased.
I don't know if its as tedious for these companies as it is for us though. But 10 million would be a nice milestone to announce.
I think that was De3d1's point. It's dominating by default in a way. And by having better versions of third party games.
Reasons people bought PS4 over XB1
Cheaper yet more powerful, and multiplatform games are more important than ever.
Better PR.
PS3 had a great lineup of 1st party games and long term 1st party support, and PS4 will deliver the same.
More developer support including indie devs and Japanese devs, and more games overall.
Smaller console size.
PS has a larger brand presence outside of the USA and UK.
Cheaper yet more powerful, and multiplatform games are more important than ever.
Better PR.
PS3 had a great lineup of 1st party games and long term 1st party support, and PS4 will deliver the same.
More developer support including indie devs and Japanese devs, and more games overall.
Smaller console size.
PS has a larger brand presence outside of the USA and UK.
I think it's catered more to the younger population. Let's face it, a majority of the posters here enjoy the relatively more mature crowd and games. I have fun with it still but more so with friends. Alone, I prefer the PS4/X1.
Microsoft made their console wrong from the get-go & now they are behind. They marketed to casuals from the start & made an under-powered gaming machine. They tried to monopolize the market & consumers saw through it then they had to reverse half their plans. What were they thinking? Here's the results, down tons of console almost a year in & scrambling to improve their image and/or offer big discounts for the first year that you generally don't see. They should have just made a $450 console from the beginning with no camera, but better specs than the PS4. They'd be even or winning right now if that were the case. Then market to the casuals around year three like you're generally supposed to do. Typical Microsoft though, try to devour the whole apple at once.
True but 2 2nd place finishes in a business many said they didn't belong in(Same with Sony actually) and well over 100M units sold is nothing to dismiss.
PS is the more popular brand world wide but not 'way beyond' Xbox.
its actually rather interesting that you would say this, because, if i can remember correctly, this same twist wasn't put on the 360 when it launched a full year ahead of Sony's PS3, and (unlike now) that did included major territories, too. people like yourself generally ran with the information and left it at that. now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly its foul? give me a break.
what, do you expect Sony to apologise because their competition wasn't prepared?
Yes! Sony probably hired someone to feed MS bad analytics and that's why XBO turned out the way it did! f***ing Sony bro!
a bit irrelevant to a sense, but the PS2 has ceased with those figures while the PS3 has not. so when that happens only THEN can we determine how much market was actually lost.
on another note, it appears that the market has grown since the PS2, original Xbox, and Game Cube as those figures are significantly different (~160, ~25, ~20) from last generation.
People really need to stop looking at PS2 as the Sony benchmark. PS2 sales were an anomaly. Also, it was a different time, different gamers, and PS2 didn't have the competition that PS3 did. PS2 did not have a much better console to contend with at a much lowered price. PS3 did. PS2 did not have a competitive console that offered much better multiplats, you know, the games that sell the most. PS3 did. PS3 "should" have done even worse. The fact that it STILL managed to sell better than the 360 tells us that the brand name carried it far.
Had the same PS3 console been released by some other company, it would have died off long ago.
We can agree to disagree on this one, but PS3 really should not have done nearly as well as it did last gen, not when it had almost nothing going for it. And if not for the name, it would have disappeared. That, my friend, is primarily due to name recognition.
Regardless of what you say...last gen indeed proved brand was the primary reason. How else would the console sell better than the 360, when it was the worse console, and cost so much more? The exclusives? Nahhh, the exclusives didn't sell a ton. We all know last gen was mostly about the multiplats, CoD, Halo, GTA, GoW, etc. And even in the face of all that, PS3 console still sold better. So, if brand wasn't the primary reason it sold better, what else made it sell better?
Last edited:
- Status