The PS2 had sold twice as many units as the PS3 by now.

[homerwannabee]

I was looking up the total sales figures of both the PS2 and the PS3 at 14 months out and I found that the PS2 had sold twice as many units as the PS3 has. I have heard people say that the PS3 is just off to a slow start like the PS2 was. While this may have been true the first 6 months. After 14 months the PS2 really had built up a following unlike the PS3.

 

Here is the numbers after 14 months

 

PS2 7,150,103 consoles sold in the U.S.

PS3 3,542,812 consoles sold in the U.S.

 

 

 

It should be evident by now that the PS3 is a flop by Sony standards.

 

Edit: here is where I got the numbers

 

PS2 Sales http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php?date=37241&boxartz=1

 

PS3 Sales

http://www.vgchartz.com/aweekly.php?date=39453&boxartz=1

Edited January 13, 2008 by homerwannabee

[spacecadet]

For the last time, vgchartz is not reliable. The owner of the site himself has admitted that half of his charts are just totally made up - he "estimates" them, which isn't as scientific as it sounds in this case. He does it based on what he thinks the numbers are, and he has no real experience or other credentials that might allow him to do so reliably. I really wish people would stop using that site as a reference.

 

Edit: Take a look at this: http://www.vgchartz.com/news/news.php?id=356

That should show you how inaccurate vgchartz' numbers are - they can overstate or understate a system's monthly numbers by 40% or more.

 

I think it was Kotaku that posted just a month or two ago a chart based on actual sales data that showed that worldwide sales of the PS2 and PS3 were essentially the same at this point in their lifespans, with some differences within each territory (ie. the PS3 has sold less than the PS2 in Japan and the US but more in Europe) but not much difference on the whole.

Edited January 13, 2008 by spacecadet

[EricDeLee]

still not a flop by many....

 

I own all three. I still think the PS3 is better than the other two.

[moycon]

Edit: Take a look at this: http://www.vgchartz.com/news/news.php?id=356

That should show you how inaccurate vgchartz' numbers are - they can overstate or understate a system's monthly numbers by 40% or more.

 

I'm confused, based on that link you just provided, as soon as the NPDs actual numbers are posted, the website is updated with that information. That would suggest that if NPDs figures are released every month, that no-more than 4 weeks would be guess-timates and then corrected when actual data becomes available. I don't see a problem with this. In lack of hard data, you would have to guess wouldn't you?

[Lost Monkey]

The PS2 was released in a very different marketplace as well - there was no competition for the first year as Sony effectively ended the life of the DC with "hype". The PS3 faced an established 360 and the Wii. I don't think I even need to bring up the fact that without the price cuts the PS3 has seen sales would have been even poorer...

[shadow460]

Three million consoles in what under two years is a flop? That a little surprising to me.

[Jess Ragan]

Actually... the Dreamcast sold 10.6 million units for the three years that it was supported. That's more per year than the Playstation 3, if it really has sold only three million units in the past fourteen months.

[liveinabin]

I personally don't care what sold more than what. So far there have been more games I've wanted to play on the PS3 than I've ever wanted to play in the whole of the PS2's overlong life span. I'm happy even though others don't seem to be buying, though in my experience, the majority of people are usually wrong most of the time.

[Gregory DG]

I wouldn't say it's a flop just yet. Give it 3 more years. If it's still in 3rd place... Flop city.

[AtticGamer]

The Ps2 didn't have any competition except the fragile Dreamcast, besides, DVD was the hot thing at the time.

Ps3 has serious competition, high price and market reputation damaged because of the price and multiple versions getting released and Blu-Ray is still an unsure format.

 

But the Ps3 is doing rather well, but if it stays like that it's bound to become the next Gamecube.

[+SpiceWare]

Blu-Ray is still an unsure format.

Unsure? Blu-Ray media sales have been 2:1 over HD DVD media (wiki). This was probably a big factor in Warner Brothers recent announcement that they were going Blu-ray exclusive.

[Atariboy]

Beating hd-dvd doesn't ensure the future of the format.

[+SpiceWare]

well that's a given - my stacks of obsolete VHS, S-VHS, Laser Disks and DVDs can attest to that.

 

Japan's also hard at work on their next broadcast standard, Ultra HDTV. I don't think Blu-ray's 50GB would be much use to hold video for a 7,680 x 4,320 display. They'd probably choose something like Holographic Versatile Disk for the next generation. Designes call for HVD to hold 3.9 TB, about 80 times the capacity of a 50GB Blu-ray disc.

[Bucket]

PS2 7,150,103 consoles sold in the U.S.

PS3 3,542,812 consoles sold in the U.S.

 

7150103 x $299.99 = 2144959398.97

3542812 x $599.99 = 2125651771.88

 

Of course, not all (but most) PS3 sales were the higher-end model. Even so, these numbers look OK to me. What's the problem?

[MCHufnagel]

7150103 x $299.99 = 2144959398.97

3542812 x $599.99 = 2125651771.88

 

Of course, not all (but most) PS3 sales were the higher-end model. Even so, these numbers look OK to me. What's the problem?

Considering all of the different configurations and prices, I would say $499.99 is closer to the average PS3 price. But really it's only been on the market for a little over a year. Let's see what sales are like after three years before we call it a flop.

[DracIsBack]

But really it's only been on the market for a little over a year. Let's see what sales are like after three years before we call it a flop.

 

Exactly. If there turn a profit on it, it may have "disappointing" sales for not rivalling the PS2, but hardly a flop.

[JamesD]

Do I really need to point out that $ sales don't = profits?

The question is... will the PS3 be profitable quicker?

Most new game machines don't return a profit on the hardware for a couple years.

 

Still, I really don't see the PS3 EVER reaching the level of success of the PS2.

There are more competitors and I think we'll see a bump in performance from the competitors that will up the stakes long before it's sales approach the PS2.

[JamesD]

Do I really need to point out that $ sales don't = profits?

The question is... will the PS3 be profitable quicker?

Most new game machines don't return a profit on the hardware for a couple years.

 

Still, I really don't see the PS3 EVER reaching the level of success of the PS2.

There are more competitors and I think we'll see a bump in performance from the competitors that will up the stakes long before it's sales approach the PS2.

Well... seems the Sony games division turned a profit. The question is whether it's due to the PS3.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/sonys-g...turns-a-profit/

[warmachine]

I find it hard to give a crap that a company turns a profit on their hardware.

It just doesn't really seem to matter at all.

 

Microsoft never made any money on xbox sales and i'm pretty sure that sega never made

any money on dreamcast hardware, but they have between them a larger library of quallity

games than nintendo's last two consoles combined.

 

I think that the whole "nintendo makes a profit on hardware" statement seems to be thrown out

as some kind of an excuse to justify the maybe 3 or 4 non rehashed quallity games that the

nintendo fanboi may get to play each year.

[JamesD]

I find it hard to give a crap that a company turns a profit on their hardware.

It just doesn't really seem to matter at all.

 

Microsoft never made any money on xbox sales and i'm pretty sure that sega never made

any money on dreamcast hardware, but they have between them a larger library of quallity

games than nintendo's last two consoles combined.

 

I think that the whole "nintendo makes a profit on hardware" statement seems to be thrown out

as some kind of an excuse to justify the maybe 3 or 4 non rehashed quallity games that the

nintendo fanboi may get to play each year.

Nintendo? Can you even read? It was Sony.

[DracIsBack]

It just doesn't really seem to matter at all.

 

Depends on the health of the company. Ask Sega ... the Dreamcast well selling fairly well and had a great library of games but they couldn't afford to continue.

 

Microsoft and Sony make money from other things.

 

the whole "nintendo makes a profit on hardware" statement seems to be thrown out

as some kind of an excuse to justify the maybe 3 or 4 non rehashed quallity games that the

nintendo fanboi may get to play each year.

 

LOL - I really doubt it.

 

Taking Nintendo out of the equation, do you really think Sony executives aren't getting their asses kicked right now for the performance of the PS3 and how much it has cost vs. what it brought in?

 

Microsoft probably had a business case to lose money on the original XBox with the hopes of hitting it big on XBox 360. It fits their model (most Microsoft projects are money losers for some time, bolstered by Windows and Office sales). Sony, on the other hand, probably assumed they'd be raking in the dough quickly (like PS1 and PS2) and so far, aren't.

[+SpiceWare]

don't discount Blu-ray. A number of people bought the PS3 strictly for HD movies as it's one of the best Blu-ray players on the market. I think that the PS3 having it built-in(as opposed to the 360's HD-DVD add-on) was one of the deciding factors in Blu-ray winning, and Sony stands to make a lot of money because of that.

[DracIsBack]

don't discount Blu-ray. A number of people bought the PS3 strictly for HD movies as it's one of the best Blu-ray players on the market. I think that the PS3 having it built-in(as opposed to the 360's HD-DVD add-on) was one of the deciding factors in Blu-ray winning, and Sony stands to make a lot of money because of that.

 

Not discounting. Just not convinced of its success either, despite the HD DVD victory. It still has to convince the mass-market consumer that it's a proper successor to regular DVDs and stave off a move from downloadable HD content.

 

That's the difference between mass market success of VHS and DVD compared to things like Laser Discs and Video CDs, Audio DVDs etc.

 

The PS2 sold a lot quicker than the PS3 did (putting many more DVD players into homes at a faster rate) and also helped drive down the price of set-top DVD players (PS3 hasn't really caused Blu-Ray players to drop in price much). Factor in the fact that everyone was in cooperation in terms of producing movies, computer support etc, and the DVD had more oomph behind it than high definition DVDs.

Edited February 20, 2008 by DracIsBack

[JamesD]

the whole "nintendo makes a profit on hardware" statement seems to be thrown out

as some kind of an excuse to justify the maybe 3 or 4 non rehashed quallity games that the

nintendo fanboi may get to play each year.

 

LOL - I really doubt it.

 

Taking Nintendo out of the equation, do you really think Sony executives aren't getting their asses kicked right now for the performance of the PS3 and how much it has cost vs. what it brought in?

 

Microsoft probably had a business case to lose money on the original XBox with the hopes of hitting it big on XBox 360. It fits their model (most Microsoft projects are money losers for some time, bolstered by Windows and Office sales). Sony, on the other hand, probably assumed they'd be raking in the dough quickly (like PS1 and PS2) and so far, aren't.

Since it was the SONY games division that made a profit rather than Nintendo it means the PS3 is riding the back of more profitable systems.

 

Nothing wrong with that since the ultimate goal is to eventually duplicate the popularity of the PS2 and gain royalties from BlueRay which will more than make up for current PS3 red ink. Remember, they make money for every BlueRay player and disk and that market may dwarf the videogame market.

[DracIsBack]

Nothing wrong with that since the ultimate goal is to eventually duplicate the popularity of the PS2

 

Which they haven't. And right now, it's looking skeptical that they'll be able to do that. For the record, before anyone gets their undies in a knot, PS3 is probably going to be my next system. But, I am highly skeptical it will ever come close to PS2 or PS1.

 

Remember, they make money for every BlueRay player and disk and that market may dwarf the videogame market.

 

If it works, it will be great for them. It has to yet to work though. I wouldn't want to be looking at the P&L for PS3 and Blu-Ray right now and having to explain to management what's going wrong ...