Moderators: Funkmasterr, noel
what did you find? I got through maybe 7 pages and only saw two things... people thought HD-DVD was going to win, and miir humped the ps3 worse than winnow did the 360, only to be wrong.Fairweather Pure wrote:Skimming this thread from page 1-19 is pretty awesome. So many quotable lines that show how wrong people were in thier predictions!
The PS3 outsold the 360 for most of 2008 but thanks to the 360s outstanding holiday season sales, their sales were a virtually a dead heat.Fash wrote:The 360 has continued to outsell the PS3, keeping pretty much the same lead for over 2 years now... the gap is not closing, at all...
It's always been about comparisons from launch date for you... I don't think many or anyone else here gives a flying shit about that. If the market share of the 360 remains larger than the ps3 and every chart shows the same lead in market share holding for the indefinite future, it confuses me what value there is in the metric you're clinging to.miir wrote:Thanks to good release sales and strong EU and JP sales, the PS3 still retains a sizeable lead in sales from launch over the 360.
Because 'units per year' is the most accurate way to measure sales.It's always been about comparisons from launch date for you...
Yea, the launch of the PS3 was so terrible that sales were higher than the 360.Sony was a year late and had a terrible launch with no blockbuster title.
Within the first year, that might make sense for future planning, but it's old news now. All that matters is how big each market is, not how many each sold by month 24 of launch... If you were a developer, would you go for the system with a market of over 30 million and a great attachment rate or the system with a market of 22 million and a much worse rate of attachment? I guess that's where all your exclusives went...miir wrote:Because 'units per year' is the most accurate way to measure sales.It's always been about comparisons from launch date for you...
Total units sold comparisons are always biased towards the product that has been on the market for the longest.
Nobody who actually owns a PS3.Aren't people still bitching about the online features of the PS3?
Fixed that for you, because it's not true without that qualifier... The 360 is still outselling the PS3 and all indicators point to its continued dominance. No one gives a shit when they came out.miir wrote:And despite all the alleged negative aspects of the PS3, it's still selling at a faster pace than the 360 did after it's launch.
Dominance of what?The 360 is still outselling the PS3 and all indicators point to its continued dominance
Dominance over the PS3. Awesome, got to say it again.miir wrote:Dominance of what?The 360 is still outselling the PS3 and all indicators point to its continued dominance
A weak and distant second place?
ROF-Fucking-L
which explains the feeble and remote third place. Yes, I think 30 million is larger than 22 million (27% larger) and therefore implies dominance. Factor in the attachment rate, and it's not even freaking close.miir wrote:You have a pretty bizarre interpretation of the word dominance.
I was going to stay out of this, but I have to comment on this.miir wrote:And despite all the alleged negative aspects of the PS3, it's still selling at a faster pace than the 360.
Nobody who actually owns a PS3.Aren't people still bitching about the online features of the PS3?
The PSN has grown by leaps and bounds in the past 18 months... it's nearly as feature-rich as Xbox live.
Aardor wrote:I'm a bit confused by miir vs the world argument going on the last few pages. Is it being argued that the PS3 is more successful than the Xbox 360, overall? or as a video game systems? Or is the argument just that "the 360 has sold more overall, but if you look at the time the ps3 has been out, and adjust the time/sale for the 360, the ps3 has sold more?"
If the argument is the later, I agree with the statement, but the actual data is pretty worthless to draw conclusions from. Console sales are effected by too many things (such as software releases) to compare overall sales. For example, the 360 was out for a year without any huge blockbuster, greatly effecting it's sales, but as soon as the ps3 was out, exclusives and blockbusters started coming out for the 360 more regularly. The other thing about this data is that it is meaningless to game development companies, who primarily look at installed based when deciding on different systems. When comparing sales, the best way I have seen to do it is month-month, and year to year, i.e. you compare jan 2009 ps3 and xbox 360 sales to jan 2008 ps and xbox 360 sales (the 360 is completely raping the ps3 in this regard, this year).
For the other possible argument, I would say that as a video game console, the 360 has been much more successful than the ps3. The software attachment rate is too high, as well as the xbox live downloads, or console sales. The ps3 is the more successful home entertainment system with bluray (and all the functionality of the 360, also). Of course, the sale of the ps3 as a bluray player has been slowing down (a price cut on the ps3 would make this go up again pretty fast), and Sony still loses money on the sale of a ps3.
Also, as an aside, software attachment rate isn't the greatest statistic either. It fails to include online downloads generally, and doesn't cover differently priced software at all. Additionally, things like Wii Play completely fuck it up. Wii Play has been one of the top 15 selling games since the Wii came out, since Wii motes are generally hard to find with out it. Last I looked, it had something ridiculous like 1.7 copies per Wii.
What? PS3 cant touch the 360 in terms of Online. Not even close. Home is lame. Free Realms will help when they get that going on the PS3.Miir wrote: The PSN has grown by leaps and bounds in the past 18 months... it's nearly as feature-rich as Xbox live.
It's a fad from a real gamer's perspective. I have fun when playing Wii, but it could never replace the accuracy of the 360 controller, nor could it deliver the same experience on goodies like fallout and other massive, intense, gamer-oriented titles. Wii bowling is fun though.Sueven wrote:Seriously, how can the Wii be just a (lucrative) fad when it's been the dominant home console for two and a half years, the entirety of this generation, with no sign of change in the near future? How long does it take to get out of fad territory?
You can think that the Wii sucks, that's fine. But the apocalyptic predictions of the system's failure (prior to release) which then morphed into high-and-mighty proclamations that it's success is a passing phase which will soon end when the novelty wears off (post release) are now looking so silly that I'm amazed anyone's still peddling them.
... noo ...How's this: if the numbers on the Wii^2 beat the numbers on the Xbox 720 or the PS4, it's not a fad, given each company continues down the paths they've set forth upon. If the numbers reverse, as I predict they will, it proves that gamers just wanted to check out what all the hype was with the cool motion sensing feature they heard about and bought into. Why else would they switch back to a more traditional system if it wasn't a fad?
Fail.Leonaerd wrote:But it's still a fad.
Your trolls are getting lamer and lamer... it's like you're not even trying anymore.Winnow wrote:See how excited people get for those long ass Sony PS3 firmware downloads that do nothing?
http://kotaku.com/5301758/playstation-f ... et-excited
2.80 has arrived! What I get out of that is 10-15 minutes of downtime while it updates the firmware. 360 owns PS3 in updates as well (less frequent, more features)
Total crap system, all around from hardware to firmware to games. The controller is ass which ruins every game right off the bat.
It's really kinda cute how Sony can't just admit they are getting their ass handed to them on all fronts and are currently trying to devise a plan to come up with some reason to release another console after this generation.Boogahz wrote:Sony responds to Kotick's PS3 threats
Their responsibility is to their shareholders, not to video game bloggers or internet trolls.I just want to hear them for once say they fucked up, it really shouldn't be that tough.
Them blatantly lying about their product, in a (completely failed) attempt to make people believe something is happening that most certainly is not, is not doing anyone a justice, no matter how much they would like to think it. Their responsibility should be to be just as honest to their customers as to their shareholders.miir wrote:Pretty much just a PR press release.
Their responsibility is to their shareholders, not to video game bloggers or internet trolls.I just want to hear them for once say they fucked up, it really shouldn't be that tough.
If you had a vested interest ($$) in a company would you want them to be pubicly bashing their own flagship product?
Didn't think so.
I know that, and I wasn't really just responding to that guys response, more to the situation in general.miir wrote:It's just a stupid little press release, chock full of marketing catchphrases.
To expect anything with substance from a PR spokesperson is asking a bit much.
I think that would be a stretch, though. Not that you aren't stating the truth about yourself, but;miir wrote:The thing is, I could echo your statements about microsoft's e3 presentation.
Nothing they showed was of any interest to me at all.
In my opinion. microsofts E3 showing was a complete failure.
I would never expect MS to acknowledge my opinions (and publicly admit that I'm right) about their product nor would I accuse them of blatantly lying if they claimed that their E3 showing was a massive success.
!!!The high definition DVD format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD is over and the winner is…HD DVD?
That’s the implication based on a recent Harris poll, which found that penetration of HD DVD players, a discontinued product, has actually increased, from 6 percent of households in 2008 to 11 percent this year. By contrast, Blu-ray penetration has increased from 4 percent to 7 percent.
How can that be, given that HD DVD players were phased out over a year ago? That’s what the Blu-ray industry would like to know. According to Adams Media Research, the numbers don’t make any sense.
Mr Adams said that the Harris findings are all wrong. Their research firm has found that just 340,000 households had an HD-DVD player by the end of 2008 v. 3.1 million homes with a dedicated Blu-ray player.
The problem may well lie with the Harris methodology. To get their numbers, the company polled 2,401 adults in an online survey. I am one of the people who has signed up for Harris surveys, and I can attest that the company does not ask one’s level of knowledge of the subjects that are being queried.
There is no question that people are often unaware of the fine points of technologies. Given that many think that they are receiving an HDTV picture simply because they own an HDTV set (even though they don’t own an HDTV decoder set top box), there’s no doubt that many respondents could think they own an HD DVD player when they actually own a Blu-ray or standard definition DVD player.
Harris Interactive did not return a call or e-mail asking for comment, but on the face of it, their findings are hard to believe. People can still debate the technological merits and demerits of Blu-ray and HD DVD (just as videophiles can still talk about how Betamax was or was not better than VHS), but one of the results of the format war was that Blu-ray won, which was supposed to simplify things. Harris’s findings are adding confusion to the marketplace.
Blu-Ray is being picked up faster than DVD was, when you compare DVD to VHS. When you factor in the economy / time of the year, PS3 losing sales as a Blu-Ray player is not surprising. With the eventual price cut/fall, their numbers in this category will begin to rise, especially given how HDTV sales rise during that time of year.Animalor wrote:Sony won this war for the Blu-Ray side, however the victory seems to have been short-lived and is hurting them a lot more than they anticipated.
People aren't buying the PS3 for Blu-Ray anymore since there are cheaper players on the market and Blu-Ray isn't really making that big a dent on DVD anyways cause the upconverting players do a great job.
Cost of media is also a huge hurdle for Blu.
That article doesn't even mention the coming mega wave of digital distribution via the net. Thanks to the 360, we'll have access to that even if Sony tries to block it because they want more Blu Ray sales.dia NewsEdge) Since early 2008, when Blu-Ray as a standard decisively won the high definition player wars against HD-DVD, it's been expected that there would increased adoption of Blu-Ray worldwide. What happened so far? Apparently, not much! It seems the public is yet to be convinced regarding the high-quality merits of Blu-ray.
The biggest problem facing Blu-Ray adoption is price. Today, you can get a DVD player for as little as $50, so how can a $200 price of a Blu-ray player be justified to an average consumer? Then, there's the issue of buying the more expensive Blu-ray discs. Let's also be honest, and add in the factor of rampant piracy on DVD, which ensures that the total cost of DVD ownership and use becomes unbeatable.
A comprehensive report from Screen Digest states the "global video business is hurting" due to the economic recession; which affects packaged media sales and rentals.
Screen Digest's report spells it out saying, "This market is coming under pressure from ever-cheaper disc sales, piracy, downloading and legal and illegal temporary ownership." Screen Digest expects Blu-ray to account for 6.9 percent of international video spending this year, but growth will remain slow into 2010, due to the current challenging economic climate.
There are some technical issues too. Consumers complain that Blu-ray players are extremely slow to start- almost as slow to boot as a Windows PC! There have been reports of consumers calling technical support wondering if their Blu-ray player is broken.
Analysts believe that it takes several years of "strong, unified" marketing efforts, and product development, to promote a new standard. The format war kept the competing parties busy, while consumers were not too interested. But now, with over a year of focus on Blu-ray and all film studios getting on-board, itís just a matter of time.
Hundreds of millions of HD-ready TVs are now in homes, and tens of millions of Blu-ray-ready PlayStation 3 units have been sold too. Retailers across the US are now beginning to offer Blu-Ray movies at around $15, compared to $10 for regular DVD which is close pricing.
Needless to say, the technology migration away from DVD to Blu-Ray is already happening, albeit slowly. And, sometime in 2010-2011, it could pick up steam.
zanasser@gmail.co (c) 2009 Jordan Press & publishing Co. All rights reserved. Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company
DVD had the same format war (If I recall, Sony had some other proprietary media that required a cd carriage they wanted for dvd, and thankfully lost). DVD players initially cost as much as Blu-Ray, or at least a comparable %, when you compare vhs -> DVD and DVD -> Blu-ray (at the time). DVD's were also more than double the price of VHS in the first few years of their release. There was also the same resistance to DVD as their is to Blu-Ray (why do I want movies twice, i already have all these vhs tapes; it's more expensive for the same movie; i don't care about quality; who cares about these extra features). The fact of the matter is that they were replaced.Sueven wrote:I'm sure Aardor knows his shit, but that's kind of shocking to me. I didn't really pay attention to the VHS/DVD switch, but I generally recall everyone knowing about it and it being seen as inevitable. In contrast, the majority of people I know probably think that a blu-ray is a rare kind of fish. The format has been available for what, three years now, and I've never even physically seen one outside of a Best Buy or Aardor's house. If I didn't read these boards and know Aardor, I'd probably never have heard of the format.
If you could take my dick out of your mouth for a moment, you might notice that I have pretty much only posted hate for sony on these boards. I was a supporter of HD-DVD, and anti-PS3 (miir and i have been in quite a few arguments about it). I also do not own a Blu Ray player, and have simply never bought a PS3 because their games/controllers are shit, IMO. As I said in the previous post, I would love for Sony to fail with another media (beta-max, their version of CDs, MiniDisc, their version of DVDs made me believe it was inevitable at first).The Sony marketing goons have programmed Aardor well!
Just a matter of time, huh?Analysts believe that it takes several years of "strong, unified" marketing efforts, and product development, to promote a new standard. The format war kept the competing parties busy, while consumers were not too interested. But now, with over a year of focus on Blu-ray and all film studios getting on-board, itís just a matter of time.
Yes, digital downloads are going to effect both the Blu-Ray and DVD market. Last I looked, the 360 digital downloads of HD content weren't even close to Blu-Ray sales numbers (don't even try to compare non-HD downloadable 360 content to blu-ray, compare that to DVD). Sure, this might take off in the next few years, and it looks like it will, but the same can be said for Blu-Ray, and there is nothing to predict how the numbers will compare (mostly because digital downloads are a new thing, and do not have years of data like format changes)That article doesn't even mention the coming mega wave of digital distribution via the net. Thanks to the 360, we'll have access to that even if Sony tries to block it because they want more Blu Ray sales.
People won't have to buy any physical media soon. Blu Ray was too slow to adopt and technology is already advancing past it. The format shoots itself in the foot over and over. The latest in a huge list of mistakes? LotR is coming to Blu Ray, but not the extended edtions. Those should come out about the time that The Hobbit film is released in theaters.Fash wrote:They will eventually make fewer DVDs and force people to the platform... I already won't buy a DVD.
Ok, what is more advanced than blu-ray? No download service offers uncompressed 1080P, or near the audio quality. Stop making shit up.Fairweather Pure wrote:People won't have to buy any physical media soon. Blu Ray was too slow to adopt and technology is already advancing past it. The format shoots itself in the foot over and over. The latest in a huge list of mistakes? LotR is coming to Blu Ray, but not the extended edtions. Those should come out about the time that The Hobbit film is released in theaters.Fash wrote:They will eventually make fewer DVDs and force people to the platform... I already won't buy a DVD.
Blu Ray will never approach the level of success of DVDs.
Also, they will not simply "make fewer DVDs". That isn't how it works at all. The market dictates when demand drops, not the companies. Blu Ray adoption has to become high enough that people stop buying the DVD version. This has never come close to happening.
Not really, it just has to become profitable, please see VHS vs DVD/ your terrible arguments that the same VHS supporters made. There are arguments to be made that Blu-Ray could fail, and will never have the adoption that DVD has, but please make the actual argument, and not this bullshit.Blu Ray adoption has to become high enough that people stop buying the DVD version. This has never come close to happening.
The funny part is, we're not even f'n close. 720P vs 1080P is such a huge difference, but most people are way to ignorant to realize this.Fash wrote:Well I'm not buying the download future... By the time bandwidth is universally available at a level to support massive scale 1080p streaming for everyone, Blu Ray will be #1.
