hit tracker

Sony: PS3 will pass Xbox 360, MS messed up their chance

Discussion in 'Xbox Gaming News' started by Zeus, Feb 3, 2010.

By Zeus on Feb 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM
  1. 11,051
    0
    0
    Zeus

    Zeus MaxConsole News Team

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Location:
    Athens
    Home Page:
    http://www.maxconsole.com
    Sony has revealed that they are supremely confident that their PS3 system will surpass the Xbox 360. Moreover, they believe that MS effectively messed up their chances to 'sprint ahead' with the console war. A fair reflection?

    <blockquote>Sony's senior VP of marketing and PSN boss Peter Dille says they're closing in fast on Microsoft and the Xbox 360; won't need 10 years.

    While not predicting anything, says Dille, "we'll pass them" and adds Microsoft missed their opportunity to "sprint as far ahead" as possible.

    "I'm confident we'll be around in 10 years and I can say that because we've done it twice. PS3 will be around in 10 years and probably much longer than that," said Dille in an interview with IGN, asked if PS3 will overtake Xbox 360 sales.</blockquote>

    News Source: <A href="http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/6870/sony-is-breathing-down-microsofts-neck-ps3-to-pass-xbox-360" target="_Blank">SI</a>
     

Comments

Discussion in 'Xbox Gaming News' started by Zeus, Feb 3, 2010.

    1. 1,199
      0
      0
      DanASBO

      DanASBO Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 11, 2006
      Location:
      UK
      No, he's saying Sony are CURRENTLY ahead.

      EDIT: One last time. Originally aimed at trancehead;

       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    2. 5,715
      3
      0
      danight

      danight Loyal Member

      Joined:
      May 4, 2006
      Not really... all depends on persepctive. Microsoft and nintendo make money on each unit sold. So microsoft for fanboy purposes could when for the throat and cut xbox 360 price to say $100.00 dollars and lost money like sony does. This inturn would have caused a huge spike in sales and probably would kill ps3 since sony could not match it and nintendo would probably only do $50 price cut.

      Microsoft went the way of nintendo and let sony play catch up. This allows them to actually make money. Who cares if ps3 sales as many units when ps3 is losing money on every unit sold. Thats called desperation.

      Any company can sell a product at a loss to try and make up sales. But its not smart business. What microsoft and nintendo did was smart. Microsoft still sells a ton of games so letting sony stay in the race doesnt hurt them.

      remember sony advertises games as well Thats less then they have to spend to do it. Microsoft may be pocketing money to setup the xbox 720 release or fund r&d for it. They just pulled a 6.66 billion dollar profit last quarter (thanks to win 7 mostly).
      But sony trying to get second place this gen at a cost of losing money on every console sold is like giving a ribbon to everyone in a race. yes its cool for kids but in the end it doesn't mean much.

      This gen isnt about getting second place. its about pushing blu ray into mainstream status. Thats why sony is willing to lose money on every ps3 sold.
      Does stock holders really care if sony catchs 360 in sales when the ps3 loses money on every unit sold? No. What they care about is long term investment. If blu-ray does become mainstream they will make a killing. But with the economy and hdtv market share and price of blu-ray movies and players its been a rough road.

      The fanboy bait is thinking sony cares if they finish 3rd this gen. lose the battle to win the war. Toshiba was a bigger threat to sony than microsoft was. Once toshiba dropped hd dvd they could focus on pushing the #1 selling blu-ray player in the world...the ps3.
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    3. 711
      29
      28
      trancehead

      trancehead Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 17, 2006
      Occupation:
      Laboratory Technician
      Location:
      Perth, West Australia
      its my fault for posting in an xbox section
      theres no reasoning with you guys
      i have nothing against the xbox like ive said
      the ps3 is a good machine, and if you guys cant see it, you dont have one.
      i have all 3 plus the 2 portables
      i was merely trying to point out that month to month, ps3 outsells xbox360 and so this guy in original post isnt wrong if the trend continues.
      BUT no one knows, the arc and natal come out soon.
      sales will likely be affected in one way or another.
      vgchartz numbers says that eventually ps3 will overtake the xbox "at current rate"
      i am not saying it will happen
      but if ps3 keeps selling more than xbox on a monthly basis, then its inevitable
       
    4. 2,211
      0
      0
      Cue

      Cue Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Sep 30, 2007
      @danight
      the xbox division is actually not currently doing well at all (i think they posted a loss) but the PS division is expected to post a very healthy profit so they can't expect to cut the 360 price as easily as you think. its either about sales or profit and if its about profit the 360 isn't as hot as you think.

      @sirxlaughs
      no doubt it's typical PR but I just don't understand why people are jumping on trancehead about total sales when he is one of the few who understood that the comment is about sales rate, even if it is typical PR.
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    5. 1,199
      0
      0
      DanASBO

      DanASBO Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 11, 2006
      Location:
      UK
      That's not what you said AT ALL.

      EDIT: @Cue: It's not my fault you have selective reading. :p
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    6. 711
      29
      28
      trancehead

      trancehead Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 17, 2006
      Occupation:
      Laboratory Technician
      Location:
      Perth, West Australia
      go back through what i said then.
      ps3 is outselling xbox on a month to month basis
      where have i said different
       
    7. 1,199
      0
      0
      DanASBO

      DanASBO Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 11, 2006
      Location:
      UK
      Don't even try and backtrack. You go back over the thread, and I refer you to the "You gave me denial Lolz" comment made by sirx.

      One more time, for shits and giggles, my original reply to yourself;

      and don't forget, edits are timestamped. ;

      EDIT: To put it simply... What you've said is; the PS3 is in second place, and the Wii doesn't count, therefore PS3 Number 1! (not using any projections, actual numbers!)
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    8. 5,715
      3
      0
      danight

      danight Loyal Member

      Joined:
      May 4, 2006
      I think your right.. but they also merged the gaming dept with the zune :rolleyes: if i recall right. Its no wonder with the ipod killing zune. So its expected the gaming numbers would be down.

      But for ps they are lucky to break even. Yes 1 good quarter might be a good sign but over all they have lost billions and breaking even doesn't recoup that.

      ever wonder why sony is so stuck on the 10 year plan? Why 10 years?
      Thats what they try and sell stock holders on... That their investment is long term and will pay off in time.

      But right now microsoft has enough profits to give xbox 360 away for free. they wont of course but they needed sony to stay high priced to make them look low priced.

      But if you look at ps3 sales... it started with the price cut. They where already losing money. But if they didnt cut they would likely not last or sales would cont to drop. They held out but neither microsoft nor nintendo really forced sony to cut, like they could have.
      But it would be total stupid for microsoft or nintendo to sale a console at a loss when they already make money on it. They will release a new console before we see a current console cost them money.
       
    9. 1,817
      0
      0
      sirxlaughs

      sirxlaughs Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Aug 5, 2006
      The Playstation division is no where near recouping it's losses regardless of some meager earnings they plan to post.
      I'm not jumping on trancehead b/c of sales rates vs total sales. I'm jumping on the fact that the interviewee says that Sony are currently behind Microsoft. Trancehead is claiming that Sony are in second place b/c of better monthly sales. The Sony rep is also claiming that Microsoft is ahead by about 8 million units, which is equal or greater than their estimated lead last year. I could beat Tiger Woods at golf if I change the game to strokes/hour, but that's not how it works.
       
    10. 1,817
      0
      0
      sirxlaughs

      sirxlaughs Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Aug 5, 2006
      If all you did was state a little factoid, I doubt you'd be getting so many responses. This is what you said:

      I've also made references to how much of lead Microsoft had. You can refer to that as well. Sony is not catching up as quickly as they want you believe they are. It's safer to say that the 360 and PS3 are currently at an overall stalemate.
       
    11. 6,014
      0
      0
      grapeape

      grapeape Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Nov 15, 2005
      Occupation:
      Consultant
      Location:
      KC
      The bigger thing in all this is at there are 3 confirmed and established console platforms, 4 1/2 confirmed and established handheld platforms (yes I count the Ipod touch/Iphone and potentially Pandora) and all look to be profitable when the geneation is all said and done. My dreamcast was dead last and totally unprofitable but it didnt make me enjoy it less, even gamers that didnt get a dreamcast cant deny that there were some fantastic games that died or have had a long gap between sequels in being forced to move to other platforms. I dont think anyone has to worry about that with the current gen. I look at this era as one of the great ones in gaming history, similar to the era's in comic collecting, there was the late 70's-early 80's which I would concider the "golden age", the early 90's which would be the "silver age" and the present which I think will be seen as the "bronze age" there were some rather flat times in between, not that there wasnt quality, but arguably it just wasnt as exciting. Bottom line is there is no reason to weep for any of them.
       
    12. 2,211
      0
      0
      Cue

      Cue Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Sep 30, 2007
      you're right breaking even is another story. previous profits from other divisions doesn't make a price cut any easier though, a profit isn't something that goes into a MS bank acount for use later. it goes to employees, and shareholders and they would think twice about investing in that division if they think that pricecut will eat at profits for a division posting a loss, just to increase sales wrt the competition unless they knew that risk will give a profit in the future. So I still think a pricecut is very difficult since it still requires investment with risk like any other. MS doesn't want to "win" they want to make money.

      You're right, the 10 year plan was touted very early on becuase they knowingly pumped billions in multipurpose R&D and estimated that is how long it will take to recoup. anybody who invested took the same risk too hoping to make money some time in the future.
       
    13. 2,211
      0
      0
      Cue

      Cue Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Sep 30, 2007
      yes they're not near recouping profits any time soon, never said they were. but quarterly loss has just as much an effect on price cuts as the initial R&D. No Its like someone saying I'm more faithfull than tiger and tiger childishly saying I can beat you at golf. thats not how it works.
      trancehead is saying if you look at sales from launch they are number 2 at a given time which is exactly like comparing sales rate. sales rate is what the statement was about saying they didn't sell fast enough to be way ahead in that year.
       
    14. 1,113
      1
      0
      beterweter

      beterweter Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Apr 25, 2008
      every site says something different,there's really none you can REALLY trust

      wiki is never right,but just go ahead and try and change something on it that isnt accurate,you won't get away with it...:rolleyes:

      love it when people try to bash ease of use,i gave actual numbers in my older posts,i don't see why it schould be repeated over and over again just because some headless chicken feels he's right.:p

      so now your saying that sony only sold 27 million as of now,then divide it with 3 years.
      now devide 39million in 4 years.
      now who sells best in there timeframe going by what you are telling me here.

      problem here is that the facts are right under your nose, you just won't see it,others get blamed for fanboyism because YOU need to learn to count,thats really just what we are saying.

      surpassing the 360 in consolesales isnt going to cut it either as long as software sales won't do better.
      dont' forget that it gets sold as blu-ray player as well.
      and i already know your going to say they did a poll here on how many bought it as a game computer or a blu-ray player...
      and almost everybody says as a gaming machine,but guess what,its a freaking gaming site!
       
    15. 3,209
      0
      0
      Trashcat

      Trashcat Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Nov 12, 2005
      In 1 gen sony lost not only complete market domination, its in the last place, now who messed up their chance here? Ridiculous price, retarded hardware configuration, about the only advantage ps3 has is better build quality which isn't really worth much, the only thing that really sells it is what's left of the "playstation brand", people don't want what the ps3 is, people want Playstation, if sony was a newcomer to the market and ps3 their first product its market share would have never exceeded single digit.
       
    16. 1,817
      0
      0
      sirxlaughs

      sirxlaughs Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Aug 5, 2006
      He didn't say "at a given time." He said, "in reality." Are we going to have another 10 page discussion about how you can't read? Even the Sony rep said they're in last place. What more is there to argue?
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    17. 3,798
      0
      0
      iLLNESS

      iLLNESS Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Aug 26, 2005
      Occupation:
      HV Industrial Electrician, Mechanic + Emergency Re
      Location:
      Canada
      the important thing here is:
      IT DOESNT MATTER WHEN A CONSOLE CAME OUT. WHATEVER CONSOLE SOLD MORE SOLD MORE.

      lol another sony fanboy fail.
      we can fudge numbers all day long to prove a point if you want.
       
    18. 3,798
      0
      0
      iLLNESS

      iLLNESS Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Aug 26, 2005
      Occupation:
      HV Industrial Electrician, Mechanic + Emergency Re
      Location:
      Canada
    19. 2,211
      0
      0
      Cue

      Cue Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Sep 30, 2007
      you forgot to read the part that says console per x time which is a rate. yeah, lets not get into a 10 page discussion but I think it's you who can't read and really needs to take a verbal reasoning test or two.
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010
    20. 1,817
      0
      0
      sirxlaughs

      sirxlaughs Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Aug 5, 2006
      Here we go again. I didn't say that his rate claim was the debate. It's a nice little factoid (read my other posts). The debate is his claim that Sony is, in actuality, in second place rather than third. When even Sony tells you they are in third, how much more can you argue?
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2010

Share This Page