Xbox One to outsell PlayStation 4 a Baird analyst says...

[Qbert]

Like it or not gaming is bigger and more wide spread this gen than last. Average gamer age is like 37/38. Bottem like is, Sony sold less this gen than last and Microsoft and Nintendo sold more this gen than last.

Gaming is bigger....never said it wasn't.


However, the audience has changed, and IS always changing. For example, pc gaming is incredibly huge now....more pc gamers than console gamers, wasn't like that before.

Did you know the average age of a gamer is about 30? Did you the average age of a gamer in early 2000 was......also about 30? What do you think that tells? The core group of average gamers back in early 2000 is not the same core group as today.

Do you think that if there was no 360....that there'd be about 160 million PS3s sold?

 

[Qbert]

and a lot are females and older gamers like Moi
about 45% female and 25% over the age of 50

Exactly.
"Market share lost" is a term that some people like to use to indicate that Sony lost a good portion of gamers to MS.....not taking into account, that these gamers were lost because maybe they moved on and are not gamers anymore. In the past 13 years the face of gamers change dramitically. Many people stopped gaming, many gamers started gaming. Many people moved on to casual gaming, tablets, ipads, ipods, smart phones, texting, etc has become new means of entertainment.

I know it's anecdotal, but most people that I know that used to play on PS2, no longer play games anymore. Most people that I know that started with the 360....no longer play anymore (age, life, kids, work, etc). Most people that I know that DO play on the 360/PS3/Wii.....weren't gamers back in early 2000, with many either still in diapers or not even born yet. I know plenty of women, wife included, that are Wii gamers.
Yes....that's anecdotal, but I'm sure it's an anecdotal story echoed throughout the country.

Was there some market share loss? Of course. Was the bulk of the nearly 100 million sales less than PS2 a "loss" of gamers moving on to another console? Doubt it.

 

[Kvally]

The difference here is MS has given official numbers while Sony has not. You may well be correct in your assumption, but to wage argument based on it is a fruitless thing. Lets just wait till Sony offer Official Numbers.

Without including PS2 sales bundled in hopefully.

 

[sharkboy1200]

Hard to say. I feel like the "war" will be even more even from the get go. It really depends on which on catches on. Honestly though, MS does seem to want to appeal to as wide a range of customers as humanly possible right out of the gate. It doesn't help that some of Sony's top games have been delayed. So I will give an edge to MS, because once again, they'll be able to appeal to wider audience, where Sony hasn't been able to expand it's audience via the Move or PSeye.

 

[jimmyD]

I'm thinking ms will usher in a bunch of 1sts for console gaming again like family share. Sony will be catching up in the services to match them again. In the end it doesn't matter Sony should still get all the credit.

 

[Ape Still Rules]

Gaming is bigger....never said it wasn't.


However, the audience has changed, and IS always changing. For example, pc gaming is incredibly huge now....more pc gamers than console gamers, wasn't like that before.

Did you know the average age of a gamer is about 30? Did you the average age of a gamer in early 2000 was......also about 30? What do you think that tells? The core group of average gamers back in early 2000 is not the same core group as today.

Do you think that if there was no 360....that there'd be about 160 million PS3s sold?

Sales figures tell a different tale. 25 billion in 2011 vs 8 billion in 2004. 56% of households in 2012 vs 50% in 2009. Record sales figures for games like COD and GTA. Why do you think Valve is making a box? Everyone is gaming from preschoolers to great grand parents.

Bottom line, Sony sold less, MS and Nintendo sold more and this gen sold more than last. An even though multi platform households are on the rise there are still more single households with consoles than ever before.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Sony sold less in comparison to its PS1 and PS2 but pretty darn good for a console priced the way it was and coming out a year later then the on fire at the time 360.

 

[Ape Still Rules]

Sony sold less in comparison to its PS1 and PS2 but pretty darn good for a console priced the way it was and coming out a year later then the on fire at the time 360.

That's not the argument. They were once dominant like Nintendo and Atari before them. They are not anymore and have lost considerable ground to MS and NIN.

 

[Qbert]

Sales figures tell a different tale. 25 billion in 2011 vs 8 billion in 2004. 56% of households in 2012 vs 50% in 2009. Record sales figures for games like COD and GTA. Why do you think Valve is making a box? Everyone is gaming from preschoolers to great grand parents.

Bottom line, Sony sold less, MS and Nintendo sold more and this gen sold more than last. An even though multi platform households are on the rise there are still more single households with consoles thane cover before.

I guess you missed where I said I never said gaming is bigger.

How does me saying gaming is bigger contradict that sales figures shows gaming revenue being higher?

Other than sales figures showing a rise in consoles in households, none of what you posted proves any of what I said to be false. The gaming audience has changed, there are more households throughout the world and the inhabitants of many households change yearly and grow with new members.

Using your argument, we'd need to assume that nearly all of the original PS2 console owners are still gamers. Once again, the average age of a gamer was 30 back then. The average age of a gamer today is still 30. The average age remains the same, because new gamers enter those numbers while older gamers move on.

 

[SevenDead1ySinz]

Sony sold less in comparison to its PS1 and PS2 but pretty darn good for a console priced the way it was and coming out a year later then the on fire at the time 360.

If they hadn't sat on their laurels and thought they had it in the bag, thus making the PS3 with a stupidly high BoM and retail price they could have probably sold much closer to PS2 numbers. Although it was good for competition and everything get to more of a competitive equilibrium.

 

[Qbert]

That's not the argument. They were once dominant like Nintendo and Atari before them. They are not anymore and have lost considerable ground to MS and NIN.

They indeed were dominate now, and no longer.....question is.....WHY?

Does it ever occur to you that it's the new generation of gamers that have changed the face of today's gamers?

 

[TeKPhaN]

yup because xb and the 360 set the standard and Sony followed.

 

[TeKPhaN]

That's not the argument. They were once dominant like Nintendo and Atari before them. They are not anymore and have lost considerable ground to MS and NIN.

lol its one ...ONE generation that they didn't win but came in 2nd place..not bad at all IMO. If PS4 does what many expect sale wise next gen then Sony will be 3-1 not bad at all.

 

[Ape Still Rules]

I guess you missed where I said I never said gaming is bigger.

How does me saying gaming is bigger contradict that sales figures shows gaming revenue being higher?

Other than sales figures showing a rise in consoles in households, none of what you posted proves any of what I said to be false. The gaming audience has changed, there are more households throughout the world and the inhabitants of many households change yearly and grow with new members.

Using your argument, we'd need to assume that nearly all of the original PS2 console owners are still gamers. Once again, the average age of a gamer was 30 back then. The average age of a gamer today is still 30. The average age remains the same, because new gamers enter those numbers while older gamers move on.

But you said this.

That point is irrelevent, seeing as that so called "lost market share" was not gained by any other console. That market share was lost simply because a good portion of them are not gamers anymore....they, you know....got older.

You appear to be saying it's smaller in this statement since you are making the claim here that PS2 people didn't move on to the Triple or any other console. So how can you be saying is bigger when you are inferring here that it isn't? Because even if what you say is true and those PS2 gamers never picked up a controller again, more new people to gaming started up this Gen than quit, increasing the amount of households with consoles and since the Triple is in less households than the PS2 only logic would dictate that they lost significant ground to the other two. So what I am getting at is how are you saying it's getting bigger when you are clearly not saying that here? Who am I kidding I don't care, believe what you want. Sales figures don't lie.

 

[Ape Still Rules]

lol its one ...ONE generation that they didn't win but came in 2nd place..not bad at all IMO. If PS4 does what many expect sale wise next gen then Sony will be 3-1 not bad at all.

Only time will tell and calm down china town I'm not bashing your precious Sony. If they make the right moves and learn for all the stupid things they did this Gen they could be back on top. Can believe they were happy getting their butts kick by Mario this Gen.

 

[Intellivision]

lol its one ...ONE generation that they didn't win but came in 2nd place..not bad at all IMO. If PS4 does what many expect sale wise next gen then Sony will be 3-1 not bad at all.

There's also consideration about software sales and overall game library quality. And online gaming has become the norm in current gen, while previous gen it was hit and miss depending on the game and console you have. I had a year one PS2 so it didn't even have the built in ethernet component. And 360 beat both Wii and PS3 in those departments.

 

[TeKPhaN]

There's also consideration about software sales and overall game library quality. And online gaming has become the norm in current gen, while previous gen it was hit and miss depending on the game and console you have. I had a year one PS2 so it didn't even have the built in ethernet component. And 360 beat both Wii and PS3 in those departments.

1st party game library quality was won by Sony this generation but MS had stronger 1st party game sales. PS3 has built in Ethernet and WiFi the 360 didn't launch with built in wifi.

 

[Intellivision]

1st party game library quality was won by Sony this generation but MS had stronger 1st party game sales. PS3 has built in Ethernet and WiFi the 360 didn't launch with built in wifi.

360 has better online functionality and stability. Also better game quality as a whole. That's why 360 software sells more (first and third party), despite both 360/PS3 having about the same 80M units.

For next gen, people will remember this as a trend. And consider it when making a purchase.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Online minus the fact that MS 1st party games didn't have dedicated servers and many of Sony's 1st party games did...MS had the edge still with online gaming.
1st party games weren't better as a whole then the PS3's 1st party games as a whole though going by reviews and significantly more GOTY awards.

 

[Qbert]

But you said this.



You appear to be saying it's smaller in this statement since you are making the claim here that PS2 people didn't move on to the Triple or any other console. So how can you be saying is bigger when you are inferring here that it isn't? Because even if what you say is true and those PS2 gamers never picked up a controller again, more new people to gaming started up this Gen than quit, increasing the amount of households with consoles and since the Triple is in less households than the PS2 only logic would dictate that they lost significant ground to the other two. So what I am getting at is how are you saying it's getting bigger when you are clearly not saying that here? Who am I kidding I don't care, believe what you want. Sales figures don't lie.

Do you really lack that kind of comprehension Ape?

Re-read what I said. Let it sink in. I mean....REALLY sink in.

As the "gamers" of late 1990's/early 2000's get older, many of them move on from gaming. Hence the comment that many of them are not "lost market share to 360"....they are lost market share period, and most likely would have been lost regardless of what other console comes out.
In the meantime, new members are welcomed into the gaming community as more people become of age to be part of a newer generation (a good portion by the way, which tend to be CoD players as you put it). Every year, the population throughout the world increases, so it stands to reason that we do see an increase in gamers. HOWEVER, and this seems to be the point lost on some....many of today's gamers are NOT the same gamers from over 10+ years ago. A good indication of that being so....is that the average age of gamers today is still the same as it was over ten years ago.



In the end, my point is, the average gamer today is not the same group of gamers that were gaming many years ago...soon to be 2 generations ago. And yes, I know that there are "some" older gamers today that have been gaming for a long time....but we all know that's the majority of gamers.

 

[Qbert]

There's also consideration about software sales and overall game library quality. And online gaming has become the norm in current gen, while previous gen it was hit and miss depending on the game and console you have. I had a year one PS2 so it didn't even have the built in ethernet component. And 360 beat both Wii and PS3 in those departments.

There's still no proof that 360 currently beats out PS3 with how many people are gaming online.

BF3 as I write this:
PS3 online
46 407
360 online
32 784


Crysis 2 as I write this
PS3 online
537
360 online
418

MoH as I write this:
PS3 online
855
360 online
628


Last time I checked....it was the same findings for various CoD games...with more playing on PS3. So I'm not sure how much of a "beating" PS3 got in the online department.

 

[Andy]

Qbert, I don't think a change in "market share" implies that it's the same people, now buying different things. "Market share" means only that -- the percentage of the market that a particular company holds. If from one generation to the next, a company claims less of the total market than they did the previous generation, then they've lost market share, even if the two generations have no gamers in common whatsoever. It's just about percentage of the market.

Pardon me if I'm intruding without understanding the context, because I haven't been following the conversation closely. But Sony clearly lost a big chunk of market share this generation.

 

[PermanentSelfBan]

More people game on PSN

 

[Ape Still Rules]

You were wrong. That's OK. But here is he short, short version.

Sony has sold less this with more overall systems sold and more single console homes.

 

[Ape Still Rules]

Qbert, I don't think a change in "market share" implies that it's the same people, now buying different things. "Market share" means only that -- the percentage of the market that a particular company holds. If from one generation to the next, a company claims less of the total market than they did the previous generation, then they've lost market share, even if the two generations have no gamers in common whatsoever. It's just about percentage of the market.

Pardon me if I'm intruding without understanding the context, because I haven't been following the conversation closely. But Sony clearly lost a big chunk of market share this generation.

Your right on the money. Not sure why he isn't seeing that.

 

[Qbert]

Qbert, I don't think a change in "market share" implies that it's the same people, now buying different things. "Market share" means only that -- the percentage of the market that a particular company holds. If from one generation to the next, a company claims less of the total market than they did the previous generation, then they've lost market share, even if the two generations have no gamers in common whatsoever. It's just about percentage of the market.

Pardon me if I'm intruding without understanding the context, because I haven't been following the conversation closely. But Sony clearly lost a big chunk of market share this generation.

I do indeed know what market share is....I'm cautioning against people using the term deceptively to make people feel like the "lost share" in this case is due to people moving from one console to another.


Many posts ago....I posted this...indicating that I am WELL AWARE that market share was lost.

That point is irrelevent, seeing as that so called "lost market share" was not gained by any other console. That market share was lost simply because a good portion of them are not gamers anymore....they, you know....got older.

 

[Andy]

I do indeed know what market share is....I'm cautioning against people using the term deceptively to make people feel like the "lost share" in this case is due to people moving from one console to another.

You're right that you can't assume it is the same people now choosing a different console (e.g., John buys PS2 in Gen. 6 then Xbox 360 in Gen 7). No one tracks data that closely. All we can say is that, measured as a percentage of the total market, Sony "lost" market share from Gen 6 to 7.

Many posts ago....I posted this...indicating that I am WELL AWARE that market share was lost.

Actually, that quote ("that so called "lost market share" was not gained by any other console. That market share was lost simply because a good portion of them are not gamers anymore....they, you know....got older") suggests a misunderstanding of market share. You say that Sony's loss of market share was not gained by any other company. But of course it was -- total market share always adds up to 100%, and if one company's slice of the pie is smaller, then other companies' slice of the pie is (must be) bigger. Nintendo and MS's market share both grew while Sony's shrunk. It has to be that way.

Your second quote also assumes that Sony lost market share because the people who bought PS2's grew out of gaming. That's just an assumption on your part, similar in size to the one you're saying others shouldn't be making, and it goes well beyond the data. All the data say are that Sony lost market share. We can speculate about why that is, but at the end of the day, it's just speculation.

 

[Intellivision]

PS2: 150M = 75%
Xbox: about 25M = 12.5%
GC: about 25M = 12.5%
Total: 200M

PS3: 80M = 30%. 70M fewer consoles
360: 80M = 30%. 55M more consoles
Wii: 100M = 40%. 75M more consoles
Total: 260M

Looks like Sony lost on both fronts. Absolute number of gamers and market share %

Math is better is when numbers are shown as opposed to words.

 

[Qbert]

Of course it's speculation, but so is trying to lay claim that Sony lost market share due to 360.

I fully understand market share...what I'm saying is that there are several factors to account for when looking at why market share was lost.

Calling Sony losers for doing as well as their competitor while not doing as well as their older product, without fully seeing the big picture is a bit unfair.

If anything, considering the higher cost at release, it being a blu ray player AND it being out a full year less than the 360...and it doing about as well, tells me Sony did pretty well for themselves.

Expecting Sony to do as well as previous gen and not considering the ever changing gaming population tells me some people don't understand some of the reasons why Sony didn't do as well.

The success of the Wii shows us where the majority of console gamers went.

 

[PermanentSelfBan]

...and Sony will continue to dominate this gen as well. Easy peasy.