Microsoft Doesn't See Sony's PS5 as Competition for the Xbox

[GT6mebe]

Yet the Xbox 360 has a year ahead of release versus the PS3, I suppose?

Yes. Even with a year extra, the PS3 managed to catch up close to the 360 by the end. 360 dominance was a misconception, usually from US posters, who projected their domestic situation with other regions. EU is Playstation territory and for PS its bigger than US iirc.

Asia is also a place where PS does well and where Xbox is non existent. For instance in Japan PS3 sold 10 million+ while 360 did 1.65 million.

PS4 will get near 10 million, while XB1 has sold 111k.

 

[GTV0819]

Fanboyism
Fanboyism never dies.

Really? I thought you're one of them.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Yes. Even with a year extra, the PS3 managed to catch up close to the 360 by the end. 360 dominance was a misconception, usually from US posters, who projected their domestic situation with other regions. EU is Playstation territory and for PS its bigger than US iirc.

Asia is also a place where PS does well and where Xbox is non existent. For instance in Japan PS3 sold 10 million+ while 360 did 1.65 million.

PS4 will get near 10 million, while XB1 has sold 111k.

By the time PS3 caught up the generation was at an end. Developers used the Xbox360 as the machine they developed for and the PS3 got the ports. Less than good ports in some cases.

Additionally the PS3 was responsible for the truly disastrous quality of games from Japan that generation.

 

[GT6mebe]

By the time PS3 caught up the generation was at an end. Developers used the Xbox360 as the machine they developed for and the PS3 got the ports. Less than good ports in some cases.

Additionally the PS3 was responsible for the truly disastrous quality of games from Japan that generation.

Okay but we're talking about sales and the 360 never dominated the PS3 if the two had similar sales.

 

[GTV0819]

Okay but we're talking about sales and the 360 never dominated the PS3 if the two had similar sales.

 

[ImaRobot]

I dunno about you guys, but aren’t you glad that sales doesn’t affect us one bit? I sure am. It’s good to know that knowing and pushing sales data hasn’t made any game that was good, worse off and any game that was bad, better off and that I’m still able to enjoy everything on all sides of the market regardless.

 

[rhalgr]

@ImaRobot
The sold copies metric to determine success gets less important as time goes on anyway. For all we know GTS could be the most successful gt in revenue, because of it's DLC and microtransactions.

 

[GT6mebe]

I dunno about you guys, but aren’t you glad that sales doesn’t affect us one bit?

Completely wrong.

Sales affect the existence of a console manufacturer.
Sales affect the investment a console gets
Sales affect if a franchise lives or dies
Sales affect the budget of a game
Sales affect if a developer stays in business or not
Sales effect the direction the industry follows.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Completely wrong.

Sales affect the existence of a console manufacturer.
Sales affect the investment a console gets
Sales affect if a franchise lives or dies
Sales affect the budget of a game
Sales affect if a developer stays in business or not
Sales effect the direction the industry follows.

And I'm sure feverishly carrying water for a company who will never acknowledge your efforts affect things too, right? That has to be why you've continued to push this issue so hard over the months that have had even an inkling of Playstation vs. Xbox to sink your teeth into.

 

[ImaRobot]

Completely wrong.

Sales affect the existence of a console manufacturer.
Sales affect the investment a console gets
Sales affect if a franchise lives or dies
Sales affect the budget of a game
Sales affect if a developer stays in business or not
Sales effect the direction the industry follows.

Are you really trying to dispute that? Jesus boy, how desperate are you! You literally took the post completely out of context to desperately make a comeback about... whatever you're trying to do.

I'm confused about how literally any of that affects me at all. So far, it hasn't, not one bit, for a good while now. Last I checked, Xbox is still there.

 

[Tornado]

Remember: This is the "industry expert" who claimed that if the PSX hadn't existed, publishers would have had rather just continue making cartridges for the entirety of the 1990s than use CDs at all.

 

[rhalgr]

@GT6mebe


Says it all

 

[ImaRobot]

@GT6mebe


Says it all

Uh oh! He also said that's a metric used by companies to distract from the fact about how terribly they're doing!

 

[GTV0819]

Completely wrong.

Sales affect the existence of a console manufacturer.
Sales affect the investment a console gets
Sales affect if a franchise lives or dies
Sales affect the budget of a game
Sales affect if a developer stays in business or not
Sales effect the direction the industry follows.

Great. I assume you are a sales agent then, which would explain your obsession with sales, I suppose?

 

[TokoTurismo]

@GT6mebe


Says it all

Ahh damn! What a shut down!

 

[rhalgr]

Completely wrong.

Sales affect the existence of a console manufacturer.
Sales affect the investment a console gets
Sales affect if a franchise lives or dies
Sales affect the budget of a game
Sales affect if a developer stays in business or not
Sales effect the direction the industry follows.

False, profit does. Sales alone won't tell you enough, if an console or game is successful. An game selling 3 million could be more successful than an game selling 5 million, depending on the budget for development or marketing.

If those games have microtransactions or dlc, the meaning of sale number alone decreases even more.

Sales obviously are relevant, but profit matters much more and it's difficult to judge the performance of an product by sales alone. So your obsession with sales is weird.

 

[GT6mebe]

And I'm sure feverishly carrying water for a company who will never acknowledge your efforts affect things too, right? That has to be why you've continued to push this issue so hard over the months that have had even an inkling of Playstation vs. Xbox to sink your teeth into.

Don't care. Telling the reality of the market to those that are unaware

@GT6mebe


Says it all

Hardware sales are strongly correlated to PSN subs, software sales (to a certain time point), and Playstation revenue.
Hardware sales continue to be a great indicator variable like no other.

If you are selling hardware, then hardware sales shows the popularity of your product.
If you are selling a service, then sub numbers shows the popularity of your product.

Great. I assume you are a sales agent then, which would explain your obsession with sales, I suppose?

I like paying attention to the gaming industry, the development and financial side.

False, profit does.

Which is strongly correlated to sales, unless your model is dominated by microtransactions and DLC.

 

[ImaRobot]

Don't care. Telling the reality of the market to those that are unaware

No you’re not. You’re just coming back to desperately try to disprove something by taking it completely out of context in order to make yourself feel better, as if you won something. Literally none of what you posted has anything to do with me, the consumer. I still get good games, I still get bad games on both consoles. I still can purchase any console available even though it’s selling less. Something selling less has no impact on me, whatsoever.

 

[GT6mebe]

No you’re not. You’re just coming back to desperately try to disprove something by taking it completely out of context in order to make yourself feel better, as if you won something. Literally none of what you posted has anything to do with me, the consumer. I still get good games, I still get bad games on both consoles. I still can purchase any console available even though it’s selling less. Something selling less has no impact on me, whatsoever.

You must be delusional to think the sales behind software and hardware performance has no affect to consumers. We've had console manufacturers exit the industry, publishers close studios, franchises get cancelled, genres explode and implode all based on sales.

It's not my problem you can't understand the relationship.

 

[Northstar]

We've had console manufacturers exit the industry, publishers close studios, franchises get cancelled, genres explode and implode all based on sales.

We've also seen console makers continue on despite not being first.
We've also seen publishers keep their doors open despite not being first.
We've also seen franchises get new iterations despite not being first.
We've also seen genres continue despite not being first.

One thing selling more, or less than another thing doesn't mean much. As long as both things sell enough to warrant further investment the consumer wins. If one succeeds while one fails consumers are in trouble, no matter where their allegiance lies.

 

[rhalgr]

@Northstar
Good point. We have seen Driveclub having 10 million users and the studio got closed. Meanwhile GTS has 8,2m users.

It's difficult to judge what will happen to studios or a franchise with sale or in this cases user numbers alone. You need revenue, cost, profit, expectations of the publisher, ... .

Which is strongly correlated to sales, unless your model is dominated by microtransactions and DLC.

Even looking at sales you are missing important information like budget, revenue, ... .

For example (even with same budget, marketing, ... and no microtransactions or dlc) :

Game A sold 5 million units
Game B sold 5 million units

Same performance right? No, because we don't know the price the game were sold for and what the revenue was. Nintendo games for example rarely drop in price. Thus their game selling 5 million means higher revenue in most cases than an Sony, MS or Third Party game selling 5 million.

Don't get me wrong, it's somewhat fine to look at sale numbers to get an better understanding how an product is doing. After all it's better than no data at all...

However, using sale numbers to ultimately decide and judge the performance is an bad idea and literally everyone studying business administration knows better.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You must also include the investment or budget plus the amount of time the studio expended to produce the game from start to finish.

If game "A" consumed a 20 million dollar budget and took 2.5 years to produce the amount of revenue from that game would need to exceed that to be considered a winner.

If game "B" consumed a 12 million dollar budget and took 1 year to produce again the amount of revenue required for the studio to show a profit would be much less than game "A". Also since studio "B" only required a year to produce their game they are actually working on producing a new game that will be another source of potential profits for the studio 1 1/2 years before studio A is working on a new product or game.

Due to the variances of the types of facts listed above you cannot just take gross sale or user numbers to determine which studio is more successful or profitable.

A game like Madden football which releases yearly against a game like GTS that releases every 4-7 years can easily change the amount of sales the game needs to produce to make an actual profit for the studio. EA sports gets a new stream of income every year from its Madden franchise while PD must make the profits from one game that can be YEARS between new releases cover its expenses for a much longer period.

Madden can probably afford for one of its game years to have lackluster sales but PD depending on its game sales to cover its budget over multiple years would face a rougher time if one of its game did not sell well.

 

[ImaRobot]

You must be delusional to think the sales behind software and hardware performance has no affect to consumers. We've had console manufacturers exit the industry, publishers close studios, franchises get cancelled, genres explode and implode all based on sales.

It's not my problem you can't understand the relationship.

Oh no I understand it. It’s just that you’re responding to something without understanding the point being made at all. Woooooshhhh.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Good point. We have seen Driveclub having 10 million users and the studio got closed.

...arguably because Polyphony got jealous that another racing game studio was encroaching on them in terms of graphical fidelity and sales. But knowing who's continuing to carry this torch, they'll say that Driveclub was a free game and only had five people buy a physical copy, the rest downloaded it for free even though it was a trial version in essence and came way too late for it to make an appreciable difference in sales.

 

[rhalgr]

@Silver Arrows
In my opinion Evolution failed to deliver on their vision (online trouble even after delay) and had some lackluster selling games beforehand. But we will never know for certain why the studio was closed. Maybe Sony doesn't want to have an racing game outside of GT anymore.

@VFOURMAX1
Perfect comment

 

[GT6mebe]

One thing selling more, or less than another thing doesn't mean much. As long as both things sell enough to warrant further investment the consumer wins. If one succeeds while one fails consumers are in trouble, no matter where their allegiance lies.

A completely wrong way to read most markets. One thing selling more usually results in another thing selling less, i.e. marketshare.
Well thats the whole point, if sales start to decrease then certain investments will decrease and consumers will see that:

I've already mentioned how MS/Xbox have lost nearly all their third party exclusives they had in the 360 days, miss marketing deals for the biggest games and miss JP games as well.

Good point. We have seen Driveclub having 10 million users and the studio got closed. Meanwhile GTS has 8,2m users.

Such a disingenuous point:

DC was a failure. It took a year to sell 2 million units. It being on PS+ is the only reason it has a lot of users.

Even looking at sales you are missing important information like budget, revenue, ... .

Revenue is strongly correlated to sales unless your game is dominated by DLC and transactions.
Budget can be estimated by industry bounds.

Even if we don't get individual numbers, we get clear revenue, profit and sector breakdowns from most publishers.

 

[GT6mebe]

...arguably because Polyphony got jealous that another racing game studio was encroaching on them in terms of graphical fidelity and sales. But knowing who's continuing to carry this torch, they'll say that Driveclub was a free game and only had five people buy a physical copy, the rest downloaded it for free even though it was a trial version in essence and came way too late for it to make an appreciable difference in sales.

I see where at the point that conspiracy theories are being made simply because you can't deal with the facts and figures

 

[Northstar]

A completely wrong way to read most markets.

I'm not reading markets, because frankly I don't care if one multi-billion dollar company makes more than another multi-billion dollar company.

One thing selling more usually results in another thing selling less, i.e. marketshare.

True, that wasn't my point though. It's completely possible for a company to successfully exist without being on top.

Well thats the whole point,

It's funny you say this, because I don't think you get the point myself and others are making.

 

[rhalgr]

Such a disingenuous point:

DC was a failure. It took a year to sell 2 million units. It being on PS+ is the only reason it has a lot of users.

You do it again....

What about budget?
Sony expectations?
Revenue?

You saying DC was a failure means nothing. The only reason we can assume DC didn't do well, is the closure of Evolution and the fact we have yet to see an sequel. That's it.

Copies sold doesn't tell us enough. Some franchises keep selling less than 2 million and still get games. It depends on more metrics.

Your post is disingenuous, because the number about 10 million users was revealed later than the 2 million sales. Thus we don't know how much DC sold in the end.

Budget can be estimated by industry bounds.

Nope. Games budget vary a lot. To the point we can't estimate it.

 

[GT6mebe]

What about budget?
Sony expectations?
Revenue?

We already know it failed all of those in retrospect as the franchise and dev were shutdown.

The only reason we can assume DC didn't do well, is the closure of Evolution and the fact we have yet to see an sequel. That's it.

Not really an assumption. The entire studio was closed for a reason.

Your post is disingenuous, because the number about 10 million users was revealed later than the 2 million sales.

What has that got to do with my post?

2 million sales in a year with no legs is a poor performance for a AAA game evidently supported by the closure of the studio.
PS+ is a service is the only reason it has that number of users.

Thus we don't know how much DC sold in the end.

DC had no sales legs from all the sales charts: its sales gradient was extremely shallow.
We know it did 2 million a year.

From these two alone we can see why it was a failure.

Nope. Games budget vary a lot. To the point we can't estimate it.

Variation doesn't mean there is clear variables at play that can be identified and then placed in bounds. Key factors are size of dev team, number of years in dev, marketing budget (AAA,AA, Indie).

https://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-big-video-game-1501413649
https://kotaku.com/why-video-games-cost-so-much-to-make-1818508211