Sony: We will pass Xbox 360 in sales soon

Sony: We will pass Xbox 360 in sales soon
According to an interview with IGN, Sony senior VP of marketing Peter Dille says the company is on the fast track to passing the Xbox 360 in sales soon, also saying that the PS3 will still be around in 10 years, and the 360 will not.

"We can be passionate fans, but I don't think they'll be around in 10 years so I'm very confident we'll pass them within that time frame," says Dille. "I mean, we've got 31 million [units sold] worldwide right now - they've got 39 million [units sold]. I don't even need to go out 10 years. I'm not going to make any predictions for your interview today other than we'll pass them, but you look at where we are today and where they are today, and they had an opportunity to sprint as far ahead of us as possible when they had the head start. Well, we're breathing down their necks and they can see us in the rearview mirror and it's not going to take too long to pass them."

Additionally, Dille confirmed that the company would begin adding subscription models to PSN, although gaming would remain completely free.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 3 Feb 2010 14:05
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 31 comments

  • Se7ven

    with the price drop it is really a better deal and this is coming from a 360 owner.you really do get alot for the 299.usd not trying to start a war just saying out the box its a better deal.but i will still stick with my 360.At that price they will soon kill M$,M$ better think fast.

    3.2.2010 14:41 #1

  • emugamer

    They'd better get to at least Uncharted 4 before a new console.

    3.2.2010 15:58 #2

  • Morreale

    Originally posted by emugamer: They'd better get to at least Uncharted 4 before a new console.Or Gran Turismo 5 lol

    I'm dying for that game :'(

    3.2.2010 17:47 #3

  • bam431

    "According to an interview with IGN,"
    My Favourite tech site reporting on something from my favourite gaming site. Kinda cool I guess.

    3.2.2010 18:32 #4

  • scorpNZ

    "We can be passionate fans, but I don't think they'll be around in 10 years so I'm very confident we'll pass them within that time frame,"

    *Chuckles*
    Yeah so it's gonna take another 10 years before passing them is what i'm read'n,by which time the PS4 will be out along with it's rival xbox..lol..& the PS4 won't be using the same chip either,nup it'll be a good ol pc based chip,much easier to code for they said so themselves as if anyone gives a toss,original xbox pwn's em all

    3.2.2010 18:49 #5

  • chris4160

    Quote:We can be passionate fans, but I don't think they'll be around in 10 years so I'm very confident we'll pass them within that time frame
    Doesn't this mean that the ps3 won't be superseded until 2020? Good luck with beating the xbox 720 then.

    Quote:but you look at where we are today and where they are today, and they had an opportunity to sprint as far ahead of us as possible when they had the head startThe ps1 was released in 1994, the xbox was released in 2001. Sony had 7 years to build a fan base that would annihilate any new consoles. Sony's excuse that xbox had a head start is invalid. If sony released the ps3 on time, there would have only been a few month's difference.

    Quote:Additionally, Dille confirmed that the company would begin adding subscription models to PSN, although gaming would remain completely free. I'm not sure how true this is, but I heard that all new psn users will have to subscribe to a paid membership to join psn.

    3.2.2010 23:39 #6

  • hikayu15

    Doesn't this mean that the ps3 won't be superseded until 2020? Good luck with beating the xbox 720 then.

    nice try but you dont take different generations against each other . because if you do , the ps2 beats 360 by miles ahead . invalid point .
    The ps1 was released in 1994, the xbox was released in 2001. Sony had 7 years to build a fan base that would annihilate any new consoles. Sony's excuse that xbox had a head start is invalid. If sony had released the ps3 on time, there would have only been a few month difference.
    again , you CANT take different generations against each other . if so , take nintendo for example : they've been around since forever and they shouldnt be taken down by whatever reason due to NES and SNES giant success .just because the 360 start at 2005 , doesnt mean the whole generation start at 2005 . wii and ps3
    ( 2 out of 3 console in this generation ) started 1 year later = that's when the generation start . microsoft jumped the gun , they intentionally did that , and looked what happen . let me tell you : RROD .

    I'm not sure how true this is, but I heard that all new psn users will have to subscribe to a paid membership to join psn.

    yup , a random internet kid question the words of a sony representative . grow up and learn to use google , kid . hirai said gaming is free , only premium stuff will be charged like early demo , videos and stuff .

    4.2.2010 01:06 #7

  • chris4160

    Originally posted by hikayu15: nice try but you dont take different generations against each other . because if you do , the ps2 beats 360 by miles ahead . invalid point .I was not "taking" [adjusted tense] different generations against each other. You misinterpreted my post. When I said "Good luck with beating the xbox 720 then." I was referring to the ps4, not the ps3. As in it would be virtually impossible for the ps4 to beat the xbox 720 in sales if the xbox 720 was released 8 years (or so) earlier than the ps4.

    Originally posted by hikayu15: yup , a random internet kid question the words of a sony representative . grow up and learn to use google , kid . hirai said gaming is free , only premium stuff will be charged like early demo , videos and stuff . LOL. At no point did I "question the words of a sony representative". I was simply stating a subjective rumour that I heard that would force every new psn user to subscribe to the premium service, it didn't even imply that online gaming would require a paid subscription (for existing members). The said rumour supposedly stemmed from an official Sony message, sent to everybody on the psn. I gave my ps3 to charity so I am unable to confirm it. BTW grow up and learn how to use grammar.

    Originally posted by hikayu15: again , you CANT take different generations against each other . if so , take nintendo for example : they've been around since forever and they shouldnt be taken down by whatever reason due to NES and SNES giant success .just because the 360 start at 2005 , doesnt mean the whole generation start at 2005 . wii and ps3
    ( 2 out of 3 console in this generation ) started 1 year later = that's when the generation start . microsoft jumped the gun , they intentionally did that , and looked what happen . let me tell you : RROD .
    Again, I fail to see your point. I was never comparing different generations against each other, you keep making this up. IF you were referring to how I used the ps1 and xbox 1 in the same sentence I was simply implying that they were the start of each console, and that the playstation has had a huge time to lure fans compared to the xbox. Just like how Sony says Microsoft had a huge time to lure playstation fans to the 360.

    You just reminded me of a point which pretty much debunks Sony's "head start" excuse. The wii was released AFTER to xbox 360, yet it is almost doubling the 360's sales, if the ps3 is "better" than the xbox 360, then why isn't it also doubling the sales (don't even start with the casual gamers crap)?

    4.2.2010 04:29 #8

  • TBandit

    No I remember reading about playstation adding subscriptions to PSN but it was just for streaming content so I am positive they will keep the gaming free which is all that matters to me. I'm starting to wonder when and if another xbox is going to come out.

    4.2.2010 05:39 #9

  • emugamer

    General consensus is that the PS4 will be released while the PS3 still has life. Similar to the PS2 still being sold 3 years after the PS3 release. So it's very possible that it won't be 10 years before the PS4 is released. Just 10 years of PS3 life. Of course, the PS2 is a novelty toy compared to the PS3. This probably won't be the case for the PS3. It's part of a new generation of online gaming that will keep it fresh for many for years to come. As the PSN grows and develops, the PS3 will maintain its longevity. It will definitely fade away eventually, but I agree that it has a solid 10 year life, if not more.

    Even if the newest MS console comes out before the PS4, it will not be too far ahead. The PS4 may trail it by a year again.

    I don't think Sony's "excuse" is invalid. Had both consoles been released at the same time, the gap would be a lot smaller, maybe even non-existent. 1 year is a big difference in sales. If the 360 sales die afer 5 years, then those 5 years should be compared to the PS3's first 5 years. That would be a measure of success for a console. Not the total lifespan of each console. Both consoles may have been designed for different lifespans. And being a more successful console doesn't make it a better one.

    What can the 720 bring to the table? Probably a lot tech wise. Personally, I'm happy with this gen of gaming and am in no hurry to spend $500-$600 on a new console in the next 3 years.

    I think the thing to take away from this article is that Sony is letting it's customers know that their purchase is going to last. Not that the PS3 is better than the 360. They have been getting beaten up pretty badly on sales and it's necessary to assure their shareholders and customers that they are in it for the long haul.

    4.2.2010 08:08 #10

  • Oner

    Originally posted by chris4160: Quote:We can be passionate fans, but I don't think they'll be around in 10 years so I'm very confident we'll pass them within that time frame
    Doesn't this mean that the ps3 won't be superseded until 2020? Good luck with beating the xbox 720 then.
    Originally posted by emugamer: If the 360 sales die afer 5 years, then those 5 years should be compared to the PS3's first 5 years. That would be a measure of success for a console. Not the total lifespan of each console. Both consoles may have been designed for different lifespans.
    @ Chris ~ Maybe, but not exactly. When you look at the data by an aligned YoY it shows the PS3 has been outselling the 360 in the same amount of time it's been on market ~ thus it is just a matter of time for it to pass the 360.

    @ Chris & Emugamer ~ The below numbers are from VGC so please take them as you see fit because they have a tendency to be 360 heavy and PS3 light but for quickness of reply/information it will have to do ~

    First year on the market
    360 - 1,180,000
    PS3 - 1,230,000

    Second year on the market
    360 - 6,710,000
    PS3 - 7,640,000

    Third year on the market
    360 - 7,820,000
    PS3 - 9,710,000

    Fourth year on the market
    360 - 11,030,000
    PS3 - 12,270,000

    Also it has been shown that when the PS3 gets a price drop and/or is within the same price range of the 360 it consistently outsells it month over month. In addition you also have to account for with a fair amount of common sense that the 360 has had quite a large amount of consoles banned and/or broken, thus forcing re-purchases affecting it's true installed base. Amount sold does not actually mean what is being used.


    Originally posted by chris4160: Quote:Additionally, Dille confirmed that the company would begin adding subscription models to PSN, although gaming would remain completely free. I'm not sure how true this is, but I heard that all new psn users will have to subscribe to a paid membership to join psn.
    Sorry Chris but that is flat out, blatantly, False. What you heard is nothing more than a baseless rumor with no proof. It has been confirmed that it will remain free for all with the OPTION to purchase enhanced services if interested. I quote SCE head Kaz Hirai ~ "in addition to the current free services" i.e. NOT mandatory. This topic has been reported & discussed here @ Afterdawn & many other news aggregate sites. I think it's validity is clear vs a rumor.

    Afterdawn
    QuickJump
    Destructoid
    N4G
    PlayStation Lifestyle
    Google

    I have to say though, that I don't think it will be as easy nor quick as Sony believes...but with consistent price cuts and solid true exclusive titles of varied genres it is hard not to see how it isn't just a matter of them getting in their groove just as they have for the past 2 - "100 Million plus" selling generations. Their proven business model is really hard to overlook and take lightly.


    Originally posted by emugamer: I think the thing to take away from this article is that Sony is letting it's customers know that their purchase is going to last. Not that the PS3 is better than the 360. They have been getting beaten up pretty badly on sales and it's necessary to assure their shareholders and customers that they are in it for the long haul.

    This is a very good assessment and I absolutely agree. The mere fact they have proven it with the PS1 & PS2 (as I said earlier) and to an extent the PSP (50 Million+ sales) justifies this.



    Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
    Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
    Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

    4.2.2010 08:49 #11

  • kikzm33z

    I would've agreed if I read this a few weeks ago, but after the holiday sales, everything has went way down hill.

    The 360 is doing horrible, with the PSP outselling it.

    And the PS3 has outsold the 360 by more than 100k every week ever since the price cut, but for the last 3 weeks, the PS3 has outsold the 360 by 40-60k.

    The PS3 will outsell the 360, but I wouldn't say soon.

    4.2.2010 13:41 #12

  • Oner

    Looks like it's closer than I thought (if the examiner added the fiscal reports correctly) ~ Life-to-date hardware sales as of the end of 2009 which gives a bit more credibility to Sony's comment in this news.

    Quote:Nintendo DS (2004) - 125.13 million
    Nintendo Wii (2006) - 67.45 million
    PSP (2004) - 63.0 million
    PlayStation 2 (2000) - 145.7 million
    PlayStation 3 (2006) - 33.5 million
    Xbox 360 (2005) - 38.7 million



    Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
    Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
    Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

    4.2.2010 15:12 #13

  • xnonsuchx

    Originally posted by Oner:
    First year on the market
    360 - 1,180,000
    PS3 - 1,230,000

    Second year on the market
    360 - 6,710,000
    PS3 - 7,640,000

    Third year on the market
    360 - 7,820,000
    PS3 - 9,710,000

    Fourth year on the market
    360 - 11,030,000
    PS3 - 12,270,000
    Thanks for that info most people seem oblivious of, but you KNOW 360 fanbots are gonna just compare US/NA-only sales...and then if PS3 catches up in that market, they'll still blindly say PS3 SUX, just like so many bigots simply HATE having a black president (and BTW, I don't mean all anti-Obama people are bigots, but far too many of them come across that way).

    4.2.2010 20:18 #14

  • rvinkebob

    Originally posted by chris4160: "The wii was released AFTER to xbox 360, yet it is almost doubling the 360's sales, if the ps3 is "better" than the xbox 360, then why isn't it also doubling the sales (don't even start with the casual gamers crap)?"The Wii was half the price of a premium 360 and nearly 1/3 the price of the premium PS3. My jaw would've dropped if the PS3 had doubled in sales.


    4.2.2010 20:31 #15

  • chris4160

    Originally posted by Oner: Sorry Chris but that is flat out, blatantly, False. What you heard is nothing more than a baseless rumor with no proof. It has been confirmed that it will remain free for all with the OPTION to purchase enhanced services if interested. I quote SCE head Kaz Hirai ~ "in addition to the current free services" i.e. NOT mandatory. This topic has been reported & discussed here @ Afterdawn & many other news aggregate sites. I think it's validity is clear vs a rumor.
    Okay, like I said it was just something I heard, not believed. But I wouldn't be suprised if the is some sort of catch introduced in the long run (maybe requiring people to sign up to a premium service to download paid dlc, or something like that).

    Originally posted by Oner: In addition you also have to account for with a fair amount of common sense that the 360 has had quite a large amount of consoles banned and/or broken, thus forcing re-purchases affecting it's true installed base. Amount sold does not actually mean what is being used. That's a good point, but the same could be said for the ps3. I reckon that a lot of the people that bought a slim would probably already own a ps3.

    Originally posted by Oner: @ Chris & Emugamer ~ The below numbers are from VGC so please take them as you see fit because they have a tendency to be 360 heavy and PS3 light but for quickness of reply/information it will have to do ~

    First year on the market
    360 - 1,180,000
    PS3 - 1,230,000

    Second year on the market
    360 - 6,710,000
    PS3 - 7,640,000

    Third year on the market
    360 - 7,820,000
    PS3 - 9,710,000

    Fourth year on the market
    360 - 11,030,000
    PS3 - 12,270,000     It's not really fair to compare two products that were sold at different times. There's a lot of variables that could change the outcome of one console (stronger/weaker economy etc). If the microsoft had have delayed the release of the 360 to coincide with the release of the ps3 rrod may have never existed. Granted it could work in ps3's favour.

    How the consoles have gone in the past isn't the point (to an extent), the future is what counts. The xbox has a pretty good year ahead, Halo Reach and Natal are coming out. Saying that the ps3 will out-sell the 360 before the end of the 360's life is being naive. The ps3 only sold about 40k more units a week than the 360, it would take almost 3 years for the ps3 to take over the 360's sales at that rate.

    Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better".

    5.2.2010 03:59 #16

  • cpspoo

    Quote:Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better".I couldn't disagree more. Quantity of sales is the ONLY true determining factor when discussing which system is better. Everything else (exclusive titles, online playing, most fanatic consumers) is subjective. How could you accurately measure everyone's individual experiences and weigh the results?

    5.2.2010 09:33 #17

  • emugamer

    Originally posted by chris4160: Originally posted by Oner: In addition you also have to account for with a fair amount of common sense that the 360 has had quite a large amount of consoles banned and/or broken, thus forcing re-purchases affecting it's true installed base. Amount sold does not actually mean what is being used. That's a good point, but the same could be said for the ps3. I reckon that a lot of the people that bought a slim would probably already own a ps3.How is that a logical conclusion? The slim PS3 reduced the price, making it more affordable for people who may have been waiting. The 360 owners who were banned or had rrods are more inclined to purchase a new 360 if that was their only option. I think it's much more reasonable to assume that a person who owned a fat PS3 would not buy a slim PS3 just because it's slim. That's like assuming that 360 Elite owners ran out to buy the arcade version. Maybe I'm not understanding where you are going with this.


    Originally posted by chris4160: It's not really fair to compare two products that were sold at different times. There's a lot of variables that could change the outcome of one console (stronger/weaker economy etc). If the microsoft had have delayed the release of the 360 to coincide with the release of the ps3 rrod may have never existed. Granted it could work in ps3's favour.It's a perfectly fair comparison. There are no "what ifs." The 360 is the console it is now because of how and when it was released. Plain and simple. The release of both consoles is too close to consider the lag as a significant variable. Both have been subject to pretty much the same variables. We're not comparing consoles that were released 10 years apart.

    Originally posted by chris4160: How the consoles have gone in the past isn't the point (to an extent), the future is what counts. The xbox has a pretty good year ahead, Halo Reach and Natal are coming out. Saying that the ps3 will out-sell the 360 before the end of the 360's life is being naive. The ps3 only sold about 40k more units a week than the 360, it would take almost 3 years for the ps3 to take over the 360's sales at that rate.You're right in that the future is what counts. But the PS3 also has a good year ahead of it. What's naive is making assumptions based on a 40k/week rate. Both consoles have exclusives that will push it. The next couple of years have a lot of variables to consider. But historically speaking, the 360 is ending it's run and the PS3 moving forward.

    5.2.2010 10:03 #18

  • Gnawnivek

    Quote:Originally posted by Oner: Sorry Chris but that is flat out, blatantly, False. What you heard is nothing more than a baseless rumor with no proof. It has been confirmed that it will remain free for all with the OPTION to purchase enhanced services if interested. I quote SCE head Kaz Hirai ~ "in addition to the current free services" i.e. NOT mandatory. This topic has been reported & discussed here @ Afterdawn & many other news aggregate sites. I think it's validity is clear vs a rumor.
    Okay, like I said it was just something I heard, not believed. But I wouldn't be suprised if the is some sort of catch introduced in the long run (maybe requiring people to sign up to a premium service to download paid dlc, or something like that).

    Originally posted by Oner: In addition you also have to account for with a fair amount of common sense that the 360 has had quite a large amount of consoles banned and/or broken, thus forcing re-purchases affecting it's true installed base. Amount sold does not actually mean what is being used. That's a good point, but the same could be said for the ps3. I reckon that a lot of the people that bought a slim would probably already own a ps3.

    Originally posted by Oner: @ Chris & Emugamer ~ The below numbers are from VGC so please take them as you see fit because they have a tendency to be 360 heavy and PS3 light but for quickness of reply/information it will have to do ~

    First year on the market
    360 - 1,180,000
    PS3 - 1,230,000

    Second year on the market
    360 - 6,710,000
    PS3 - 7,640,000

    Third year on the market
    360 - 7,820,000
    PS3 - 9,710,000

    Fourth year on the market
    360 - 11,030,000
    PS3 - 12,270,000     It's not really fair to compare two products that were sold at different times. There's a lot of variables that could change the outcome of one console (stronger/weaker economy etc). If the microsoft had have delayed the release of the 360 to coincide with the release of the ps3 rrod may have never existed. Granted it could work in ps3's favour.

    How the consoles have gone in the past isn't the point (to an extent), the future is what counts. The xbox has a pretty good year ahead, Halo Reach and Natal are coming out. Saying that the ps3 will out-sell the 360 before the end of the 360's life is being naive. The ps3 only sold about 40k more units a week than the 360, it would take almost 3 years for the ps3 to take over the 360's sales at that rate.

    Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better".    If you're counting factors like the economy and inflation, the PS3 numbers are better than the Xbox 360. It's not naive to say the PS3 will out sell the 360, it's happening... If you're counting exclusives, the PS3 got a lot more than 360. As for Natal, the PS3 got that funny ball looking remote, so it's equally matched (not that some gamers care, lol).

    Yes, Live is better, but it's not free... The premium PSN will match Live eventually (duh, you have to pay for it). The cross game chat, custom music, disc-less Netflix streaming etc., will be available on the PSN. So, as you can see, besides the exclusive titles, the PS3 will pretty much do what the 360 does.

    There are always pros and cons for both systems. However, you can't argue the FACT that the PS3 does offer more for the bucks. If people ask me "which console should i buy for nephews/cousins?" I simply reply "go with the PS3" Why? With the 360, the accessories are just too costly (parents hate that) and not to mention you have to pay to game on-line (i know it's a better service, but you're talking about other people, not you).

    Think about it...

    With the PS3, you don't have to buy anything to go wireless WiFi. Any 2.5" hdd will do if you want more space (a lot cheaper that 360). Any blue tooth headsets will work. Playing games on-line is free (not good as 360, but hey, good enough for free right?)

    Added PS3 bonuses... Any Sony HD camcorder works flawlessly with the PS3 (plug in the damn thing via USB cable and viola, you can enjoy everything on the PS3, save it, copy it, the native AVCHD files). Of course, plugging an external hdd with Avi/Divx files will also work.

    5.2.2010 10:48 #19

  • chris4160

    Originally posted by cpspoo: Quote:Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better".I couldn't disagree more. Quantity of sales is the ONLY true determining factor when discussing which system is better. Everything else (exclusive titles, online playing, most fanatic consumers) is subjective. How could you accurately measure everyone's individual experiences and weigh the results?Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Sales are a SUBJECTIVE factor, as usually people will buy what they think is better (or if they liked the previous model). Look at the sales figures, 30,000 of the 40,000 ps3 units that were sold over the 360 last week were sold in Japan. Less than 2,000 360's were sold in Japan last week. Could this be because the consumers in Japan are biased against the xbox 360 as it is an American console and the ps3 is a home-grown alternative? Sales are opinion based, and are in no way a gauge of which one is "better".

    Originally posted by emugamer: How is that a logical conclusion? The slim PS3 reduced the price, making it more affordable for people who may have been waiting. The 360 owners who were banned or had rrods are more inclined to purchase a new 360 if that was their only option. The xbox 360 had a 12 month warranty at release, any console that got rrod when the ps3 was not released would have been repaired by microsoft. That point is void. AFAIK the first ban wave due to modded firmware was in October/November '06 (I've got no clue about the modding scene back then though). Another invalid point (unless the ban wave was earlier, in which case I apologise).

    Originally posted by emugamer: You're right in that the future is what counts. But the PS3 also has a good year ahead of it. What's naive is making assumptions based on a 40k/week rate. Both consoles have exclusives that will push it. The next couple of years have a lot of variables to consider. But historically speaking, the 360 is ending it's run and the PS3 moving forward.I don't see how it's naive. It's a lot fairer than basing it on 100k a week results like most have implied. From memory the 360 was once beating the ps3 by 50,000+ a week, it just shows that anything can change.

    Originally posted by emugamer: It's a perfectly fair comparison. There are no "what ifs." The 360 is the console it is now because of how and when it was released. Plain and simple. The release of both consoles is too close to consider the lag as a significant variable. Both have been subject to pretty much the same variables. We're not comparing consoles that were released 10 years apart.
    Then why does Sony keep saying that the only reason they are behind in sales is because they released the ps3 later? If there are no "what ifs", then sony's excuse that "If we released it at the same time as the 360 the ps3 would be beating the it" is null and void and the discussion is over.

    Originally posted by Gnawnivek: If you're counting factors like the economy and inflation, the PS3 numbers are better than the Xbox 360. It's not naive to say the PS3 will out sell the 360, it's happening... If you're counting exclusives, the PS3 got a lot more than 360. As for Natal, the PS3 got that funny ball looking remote, so it's equally matched (not that some gamers care, lol).

    Quantity doesn't equal quality. The xbox has probably the best exclusives of any console. The halo series is one of the most popular online exclusives.

    Originally posted by Gnawnivek: Added PS3 bonuses... Any Sony HD camcorder works flawlessly with the PS3 (plug in the damn thing via USB cable and viola, you can enjoy everything on the PS3, save it, copy it, the native AVCHD files). Of course, plugging an external hdd with Avi/Divx files will also work.Yeah, but the xbox has media center and msn. Plus media streaming.

    Anyway the xbox and the ps3 are way to close to make a decision on which is better. It's purely up to personal preference. I use to be a playstation fan... I even bought a ps3 before my xbox 360.

    5.2.2010 23:39 #20

  • xnonsuchx

    Originally posted by cpspoo: Quote:Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better".I couldn't disagree more. Quantity of sales is the ONLY true determining factor when discussing which system is better. Everything else (exclusive titles, online playing, most fanatic consumers) is subjective. How could you accurately measure everyone's individual experiences and weigh the results?So Pizza Hut is the best pizza ever?

    6.2.2010 00:31 #21

  • jricky

    if sony comes up with a premiun account for psn they wont cath up in 10 years no way. why would i pay $299.00 + $60.00 + premiun account when i can pay $199.00 + $60.00 + premiun account , i mean i can get an extra game or control or hd cable or save $100.00.....

    6.2.2010 07:26 #22

  • emugamer

    Originally posted by chris4160: Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Sales are a SUBJECTIVE factor, as usually people will buy what they think is better (or if they liked the previous model). Look at the sales figures, 30,000 of the 40,000 ps3 units that were sold over the 360 last week were sold in Japan. Less than 2,000 360's were sold in Japan last week. Could this be because the consumers in Japan are biased against the xbox 360 as it is an American console and the ps3 is a home-grown alternative? Sales are opinion based, and are in no way a gauge of which one is "better".I agree. Sales just determine which is the more successful console, obviously. There is no way to determine which console is better. No matter how many spec breakdowns are done and what industry "experts" decide, the owners of the "losing" console will always disagree. But this article is not about which console is better. It's about how successful the PS3 may be as a long term purchase.

    Originally posted by chris4160: The xbox 360 had a 12 month warranty at release, any console that got rrod when the ps3 was not released would have been repaired by microsoft. That point is void. AFAIK the first ban wave due to modded firmware was in October/November '06 (I've got no clue about the modding scene back then though). Another invalid point (unless the ban wave was earlier, in which case I apologise).Well, with the rrod, you have a double wammy. It was happening to people in different time periods. Regardless of how many happened before the PS3 release, it was an ongoing problem until recent hardware changes. There were many people who had theirs rrod fail after the 1 year warranty and before MS extended the warranty to 3 years. And even then, it didn't apply to everyone. Then you have the rrods of modded consoles. Some stores didn't care if you exchanged them, but others did. There has also been more than 1 ban wave. Maybe 3? (someone corrrect me). My point is, it doesn't matter when the rrod's happened or when the ban waves happened. We would be comparing the first 5 years of each consoles life. And like I said, their individual release dates are too close to think that comparing the first 5 years of each console is unfair due to external factors like the economy. I still don't understand why you would assume that people who bought the fat PS3 would be inclined to buy a slim when there's is working fine. Personally if mine failed, I would ship it back to get it fixed for $150 rather than buy a new slim. And I don't know any other PS3 owners (and I know many) who would do that. Whereas, owners of 360's that were modded that failed may be less inclined to send their console back to MS for repairs, and would be more inclined to by a new console (if for whatever reason they fell outside of whatever warranty umbrella exists at the time).

    Originally posted by chris4160: I don't see how it's naive. It's a lot fairer than basing it on 100k a week results like most have implied. From memory the 360 was once beating the ps3 by 50,000+ a week, it just shows that anything can change.I apologize if I was implying that you were naive. What I typed and what I meant were two separate things. But, I still feel that assuming a $40k/week lead to project the PS3 sales for the next however many years is a bit on the low side. Like you said, anything can change.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Then why does Sony keep saying that the only reason they are behind in sales is because they released the ps3 later? If there are no "what ifs", then sony's excuse that "If we released it at the same time as the 360 the ps3 would be beating the it" is null and void and the discussion is over.The reason why Sony keeps up with this argument is that many people compare total MS sales since its release to total Sony sales since its release. Which is an unfair comparison because MS has 1 more year selling its console. When I said that there are no "what if's" I meant it in the context of taking the first 5 years of 360 sales and comparing it to the first 5 years of PS3 sales. That evens things out and really gives you the best comparison.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Quantity doesn't equal quality. The xbox has probably the best exclusives of any console.Purely subjective.

    Originally posted by chris4160: The halo series is one of the most popular online exclusives.I can agree with that if there is no data showing otherwise.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Anyway the xbox and the ps3 are way to close to make a decision on which is better. It's purely up to personal preference. I use to be a playstation fan... I even bought a ps3 before my xbox 360.You're absolutely correct. They even cater to different demographics (somewhat).

    6.2.2010 12:11 #23

  • Oner

    Originally posted by chris4160: Originally posted by Oner: In addition you also have to account for with a fair amount of common sense that the 360 has had quite a large amount of consoles banned and/or broken, thus forcing re-purchases affecting it's true installed base. Amount sold does not actually mean what is being used. That's a good point, but the same could be said for the ps3. I reckon that a lot of the people that bought a slim would probably already own a ps3.That is not nearly the same thing because that wouldn't be even close to what the number's are/could be for the 360's issues.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Originally posted by Oner: @ Chris & Emugamer ~ The below numbers are from VGC so please take them as you see fit because they have a tendency to be 360 heavy and PS3 light but for quickness of reply/information it will have to do ~

    First year on the market
    360 - 1,180,000
    PS3 - 1,230,000

    Second year on the market
    360 - 6,710,000
    PS3 - 7,640,000

    Third year on the market
    360 - 7,820,000
    PS3 - 9,710,000

    Fourth year on the market
    360 - 11,030,000
    PS3 - 12,270,000     It's not really fair to compare two products that were sold at different times. There's a lot of variables that could change the outcome of one console (stronger/weaker economy etc). If the microsoft had have delayed the release of the 360 to coincide with the release of the ps3 rrod may have never existed. Granted it could work in ps3's favour.

    How the consoles have gone in the past isn't the point (to an extent), the future is what counts. The xbox has a pretty good year ahead, Halo Reach and Natal are coming out. Saying that the ps3 will out-sell the 360 before the end of the 360's life is being naive. The ps3 only sold about 40k more units a week than the 360, it would take almost 3 years for the ps3 to take over the 360's sales at that rate.

    Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better".    There is nothing naive. You are only being naive if you only look at 1 specific item of data and limit yourself to that. An aligned sales comparison does matter as it shows how well one item did (or is doing) vs the other in it's time frame 1:1 but even then if you don't agree the PS3 has STILL outsold the 360 in availability to market i.e. the Wii is the #1 fastest selling console followed by the PS2 then the PS3 while the 360 is something like 8th or something like that...


    Originally posted by chris4160: Originally posted by emugamer: How is that a logical conclusion? The slim PS3 reduced the price, making it more affordable for people who may have been waiting. The 360 owners who were banned or had rrods are more inclined to purchase a new 360 if that was their only option. The xbox 360 had a 12 month warranty at release, any console that got rrod when the ps3 was not released would have been repaired by microsoft. That point is void. AFAIK the first ban wave due to modded firmware was in October/November '06 (I've got no clue about the modding scene back then though). Another invalid point (unless the ban wave was earlier, in which case I apologise).Sorry but I have to correct you on that. The 360 had a 90 Day Warranty when it was released. I am one of the few people who got screwed because of it. The 360 I got RROD'ed under 90 days, then because it was not under warranty it had to be opened to be fixed via the original Llama Mod X-clamp fix only for MS to later extend the warranty and not cover a "modified" console. So your point is the one that is actually void (in part at least).

    As far as the ban waves I recollect 3 MAJOR ones that all happened right before Christmas. I do stand by MS doing this as it is their job to protect their business but looking at it via the consumer's side you would have to be ignorant to believe these actions did not pad their sales because of re-purchases.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Originally posted by Gnawnivek: If you're counting factors like the economy and inflation, the PS3 numbers are better than the Xbox 360. It's not naive to say the PS3 will out sell the 360, it's happening... If you're counting exclusives, the PS3 got a lot more than 360. As for Natal, the PS3 got that funny ball looking remote, so it's equally matched (not that some gamers care, lol).

    Quantity doesn't equal quality. The xbox has probably the best exclusives of any console. The halo series is one of the most popular online exclusives.    But then you are contradicting yourself because you just said earlier that "Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better" and then again right here that "Quantity doesn't equal quality" ~ so imho that applies to Halo because if it is "popular" that doesn't mean it is "better" or "good"...and the same applies to Modern Warfare 2 with all it's glitches and issues.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Originally posted by Gnawnivek: Added PS3 bonuses... Any Sony HD camcorder works flawlessly with the PS3 (plug in the damn thing via USB cable and viola, you can enjoy everything on the PS3, save it, copy it, the native AVCHD files). Of course, plugging an external hdd with Avi/Divx files will also work.Yeah, but the xbox has media center and msn. Plus media streaming.

    Anyway the xbox and the ps3 are way to close to make a decision on which is better. It's purely up to personal preference. I use to be a playstation fan... I even bought a ps3 before my xbox 360.    Yes very true (about preference) but the PS3 also has media streaming capabilities as well don't forget.


    Originally posted by emugamer: Originally posted by chris4160: Quantity doesn't equal quality. The xbox has probably the best exclusives of any console.
    Purely subjective.    Exactly. Plus the averages show the PS3's exclusives actually rate higher.



    Search > http://forums.afterdawn.com/search
    Rules > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
    Important Rule > http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/380660

    6.2.2010 16:19 #24

  • chris4160

    Originally posted by Oner: That is not nearly the same thing because that wouldn't be even close to what the number's are/could be for the 360's issues. Yes, but the rrod and bannings would probably work in ps3's favour in the long term. It would be hard to imagine the ps3 (or the wii) would be as successful as they are now if the rrod never existed (not to mention if the hardware prices were actually reasonable).

    Originally posted by Oner: Sorry but I have to correct you on that. The 360 had a 90 Day Warranty when it was released. I am one of the few people who got screwed because of it. The 360 I got RROD'ed under 90 days, then because it was not under warranty it had to be opened to be fixed via the original Llama Mod X-clamp fix only for MS to later extend the warranty and not cover a "modified" console. So your point is the one that is actually void (in part at least). My bad, I don't really know a lot about the release date console. But the warranty was extended just over a year later (microsoft are idiots to wait that long to extend it).

    Originally posted by Oner: As far as the ban waves I recollect 3 MAJOR ones that all happened right before Christmas. I do stand by MS doing this as it is their job to protect their business but looking at it via the consumer's side you would have to be ignorant to believe these actions did not pad their sales because of re-purchases.AFAIK the first xtreme firmware was released in mid 2006, so the bannings occured in late 06, the same time as the ps3 was released. So I stand by my original statement.

    Originally posted by Oner: But then you are contradicting yourself because you just said earlier that "Anyway, quantity of sales doesn't determine which one is "better" and then again right here that "Quantity doesn't equal quality" ~ so imho that applies to Halo because if it is "popular" that doesn't mean it is "better" or "good"...and the same applies to Modern Warfare 2 with all it's glitches and issues.To sales; yes. To online popularity; not so much. Obviously nobody is going to keep playing a game online if it sucks. But if somebody buys a console they are stuck with it whether they like it or not (unless they return it, but that may still count as a console sold). I heard that halo 3 has 3000 years of total online gameplay, somehow I don't doubt it either (I read that mid last year aswell, it is probably significantly larger now).

    Originally posted by Oner: Exactly. Plus the averages show the PS3's exclusives actually rate higher.Those averages would be subjective aswell, that's just being pedantic now though :). I find it hard to believe that there is a ps3 equivalent to halo 3, left 4 dead (1 and 2), Gears of War (1 and 2 again) and forza. The xbox's average would also be dragged down by mass of crap games, like viva pinata (the ps3's would also).

    Originally posted by emugamer: I still don't understand why you would assume that people who bought the fat PS3 would be inclined to buy a slim when there's is working fine. Collectors item etc. The way I see the slim is basically a gimmick to attract more attention. I know of a lot of cases where people traded in there ps2 to get a slim. I think that the slim is meant to be like the elite; better. Certainly if people did research they would discoer that the slim is inferior in most aspects excluding price. Probably too many people wouldn't have done this though.

    Originally posted by emugamer: Whereas, owners of 360's that were modded that failed may be less inclined to send their console back to MS for repairs, and would be more inclined to by a new console (if for whatever reason they fell outside of whatever warranty umbrella exists at the time).Or they could have bought a ps3. The rrod works in both ways tbh.

    7.2.2010 03:20 #25

  • emugamer

    Originally posted by chris4160: Collectors item etc. The way I see the slim is basically a gimmick to attract more attention. I know of a lot of cases where people traded in there ps2 to get a slim. I think that the slim is meant to be like the elite; better. Certainly if people did research they would discoer that the slim is inferior in most aspects excluding price. Probably too many people wouldn't have done this though.Collector's item? That's just silly to consider as a number padding factor. Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The same can be said about Elite owners buying the Arcade as a collectors item, in which case, this type of "padding" cancels out.

    Educate me on the inferiority of the slim. It doesn't support another OS, and supposedly movie load times are slightly slower - oh and it can't be stood up vertically. But it is quieter, lower profile and dissipates less heat. Don't bother complaining about the matte finish or how ugly you think it is.

    Originally posted by chris4160: Or they could have bought a ps3. The rrod works in both ways tbh.Again we will agree to disagree. IMO, That scenario is less likely. I just find it hard to believe. I couldn't convince my friends to change teams even after their 3rd 360. They are already heavily invested in it - subscription, stats, online game clans etc. And then you have people who use modded systems. Shelling out the cash for a new console is pennies to them compared to the savings they see pirating games. I'm not saying that switching to a PS3 can't happen. Just that there are too many factors that would make it less likely, and that it would hardly be a reason to eliminate rrod as a number padding contributor.

    8.2.2010 12:24 #26

  • Morreale

    Originally posted by emugamer: Again we will agree to disagree. IMO, That scenario is less likely. I just find it hard to believe. I couldn't convince my friends to change teams even after their 3rd 360. They are already heavily invested in it - subscription, stats, online game clans etc. And then you have people who use modded systems. Shelling out the cash for a new console is pennies to them compared to the savings they see pirating games. I'm not saying that switching to a PS3 can't happen. Just that there are too many factors that would make it less likely, and that it would hardly be a reason to eliminate rrod as a number padding contributor.100% agreed here. Tried to get my friend on his 4th 360 to switch and he almost did but no... He'll probably get one this year though.

    8.2.2010 17:32 #27

  • Se7ven

    that's one of my reasons for staying on team 360 my gamer score is 36,185 it took me a long time to get that high i thought about switching now that the ps3 price is sweet it make me want to own both.

    todd logan

    8.2.2010 18:39 #28

  • Gnawnivek

    Originally posted by Se7ven: that's one of my reasons for staying on team 360 my gamer score is 36,185 it took me a long time to get that high i thought about switching now that the ps3 price is sweet it make me want to own both.36,185 achievement points roughly equal to level 16 or 17 on PSN, which is pretty impressive. It's a ballpark estimate, so don't get carried away... On PSN, there's this trophy system, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Each trophies contribute some points to a level. Earlier levels are easy, but it gets harder as you go along. If you get every achievement points in a game, that's 1000, which equivalent to ONE Platinum trophy and whatever other trophies set in the game. It's quite a feat to obtain a platinum trophy (a lot of work in most cases).

    The thing i like about the PSN system is that, you can actually see the number of platinum trophies. In the Xbox 360 world, the total is just a number. I know the higher it is, the impressive you're as a gamer. However, for achievements, it doesn't reward you sweetly as trophies when you finish a game 100% (1000 points that's it, but the PS3 gives you a platinum for achieving that feat).

    If you're a RPG fan, the PSN leveling up system is a very cool way to keep track of the achievements. I know it's just a number, but man, everything else is a number right? I'm just saying i like the trophy system better.

    8.2.2010 21:11 #29

  • Morreale

    Quote:Originally posted by Se7ven: that's one of my reasons for staying on team 360 my gamer score is 36,185 it took me a long time to get that high i thought about switching now that the ps3 price is sweet it make me want to own both.36,185 achievement points roughly equal to level 16 or 17 on PSN, which is pretty impressive. It's a ballpark estimate, so don't get carried away... On PSN, there's this trophy system, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Each trophies contribute some points to a level. Earlier levels are easy, but it gets harder as you go along. If you get every achievement points in a game, that's 1000, which equivalent to ONE Platinum trophy and whatever other trophies set in the game. It's quite a feat to obtain a platinum trophy (a lot of work in most cases).

    The thing i like about the PSN system is that, you can actually see the number of platinum trophies. In the Xbox 360 world, the total is just a number. I know the higher it is, the impressive you're as a gamer. However, for achievements, it doesn't reward you sweetly as trophies when you finish a game 100% (1000 points that's it, but the PS3 gives you a platinum for achieving that feat).

    If you're a RPG fan, the PSN leveling up system is a very cool way to keep track of the achievements. I know it's just a number, but man, everything else is a number right? I'm just saying i like the trophy system better.    I like it better cause it more like Pokemon :D

    9.2.2010 00:22 #30

  • xnonsuchx

    Originally posted by emugamer: Educate me on the inferiority of the slim. It doesn't support another OS, and supposedly movie load times are slightly slower - oh and it can't be stood up vertically. But it is quieter, lower profile and dissipates less heat. Don't bother complaining about the matte finish or how ugly you think it is....w/o the US$19.99 official vertical stand or some other method.

    9.2.2010 00:39 #31

© 2024 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud