NPD December 2009

Psychotext said:
Reminds me of that Sony slide...

8aex5sg.jpg


I bet they wish they were back in the PS2 glory days. Because the Wii is in exactly the same place the PS2 was when they showed that slide... and the Wii didn't get the headstart the PS2 did either.
Click to expand...

WOW, I had totally forgotten about this! You're right, though, on all counts. And just like last gen, there is *zero* chance that the two second place contenders will ever catch the leader. It just ain't gonna happen.
 
On the bright side... this gen has seen improvements for everyone, relatively speaking.

The 1st place console is selling faster than the 1st place console last gen.
The 2nd place console has already outsold the 2nd place console last gen.
The 3rd place console has already outsold the 3rd place console last gen.

Plus, arguably the 2nd and 3rd place consoles this gen will the highest selling 2nd / 3rd place machines in gaming history. I wouldn't be surprised if they both beat the old NES in sales either (61 million).
 
Psychotext said:
On the bright side... this gen has seen improvements for everyone, relatively speaking.

The 1st place console is selling faster than the 1st place console last gen.
The 2nd place console has already outsold the 2nd place console last gen.
The 3rd place console has already outsold the 3rd place console last gen.

Plus, arguably the 2nd and 3rd place consoles this gen will the highest selling 2nd / 3rd place machines in gaming history. I wouldn't be surprised if they both beat the old NES in sales either (61 million).
Click to expand...

True, it's definitely not bad news to be in second or really, even third, these days. This is one of the reasons I'm *glad* Nintendo took the road they did; I don't think this gen would be doing nearly as well if we once again had three consoles with virtually identical experiences. Graphical weakness or not, the industry *needed* somebody to do SOMETHING different. I know everybody's bitching because Nintendo is the biggest benefactor, business-wise, but I don't see how that's inappropriate, given that they were the only ones who took a major risk on upsetting the way games are PLAYED.

Now my question is, what the hell will they do next gen? I'd have thought something along the lines of what MS is doing with Natal, but that suddenly seems a lot less likely. I also thought "refine Wiimote", but they've already done that with WMP, and that's essentially all Sony's doing with it's PSThriimote, so that also seems like it would be too lackluster for next gen.

So, I hope THEY have ideas, because outside of Holographic Projection, I don't :)
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
I haven't seen anybody in this thread "defending their console of choice", you're mistaken. As an owner of all three consoles, my console of choice is: All three consoles. As an observer to the console war, we have to go on numbers, and according to all the best numbers we have, both official and unofficial, the only team with a decisive victory is Nintendo. PS3 and 360 are neck and neck in monthly sales, which isn't exactly a recipe for one overpowering the other in the marketplace. No question PS3 had the better bundles; the question really is, why didn't those bundles matter more? I have no good answer.

On the bright side, it should be very entertaining to watch how 2010 unfolds :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, I own all three consoles also. It just boggles the mind how the 360 still sells so well when the bundles were no where near as good as the PS3's.
 
refraxion said:
Yeah, I own all three consoles also. It just boggles the mind how the 360 still sells so well when the bundles were no where near as good as the PS3's.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. It's that fact that makes me think, you know, a price drop or a hardware revision (or both, price drop earlier in the year, revision near the holidays) could be all they need to stay ahead of the curve. Clearly, they aren't suffering at the hands of anybody but Nintendo, and there's no overcoming that 800LB gorilla this generation. For anyone. :p
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
True, it's definitely not bad news to be in second or really, even third, these days.
Click to expand...

MS and Sony both lost billions. I seriously doubt either will make back the massive amount of money they've already lost this generation, but at least for Sony it won them the format war. All it did for MS was increase Mac sales. If you're gaming on an 360 what do you need Windows for?
 
BladeVenom said:
MS and Sony both lost billions. I seriously doubt either will make back the massive amount of money they've already lost this generation, but at least for Sony it won them the format war. All it did for MS was increase Mac sales. If you're gaming on an 360 what do you need Windows for?
Click to expand...

Let's see. Apps, mail servers, database servers, Office, all kinds of stuff.

Microsoft lost lots of money last gen, but surprisingly not that much this gen, and they've been turning year over year profits for 2 years running now. Sony, meanwhile, is still losing money. Winning the format war was certainly a victory, though whether it was worth it is anybody's guess at this point, given that bluray sales continue to be a distant second to DVD.

Anyway, I don't think they drove very many people to Mac at all, and even if they did, it wasn't by means of 360, it was by means of Vista. Windows 7, on the other hand, is a flat out fantastic operating system that blows OSX out of the water.

Anyway though, by any measure, Nintendo won this gen, hands down.
 
BladeVenom said:
All it did for MS was increase Mac sales.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that for MS it prevented Sony being in sole control of what's essentially a PC in the living room. That's why the xbox came into being in the first place.

As for Apple, they remain a bit player with sub 10% OS marketshare.
 
Psychotext said:
I think you'll find that for MS it prevented Sony being in sole control of what's essentially a PC in the living room. That's why the xbox came into being in the first place.

As for Apple, they remain a bit player with sub 10% OS marketshare.
Click to expand...

Well and succinctly said :)
 
BladeVenom said:
MS and Sony both lost billions. I seriously doubt either will make back the massive amount of money they've already lost this generation, but at least for Sony it won them the format war. All it did for MS was increase Mac sales. If you're gaming on an 360 what do you need Windows for?
Click to expand...

As DragonMasterAlex already meantioned M$ isn't losing money only Sony is. Despite the RROD problem which cost billions in warranties, M$ was able to reduce their cost relatively quickly and started breaking even and profiting on their hardware (sku dependent). The biggest difference though is M$ is doing well with software sales and that's where the real money is made.

As far as the NPD numbers go its worth noting that Walmart the #1 retailer in America doesn't report to NPD. Which could matter if there was a extremely good deal for a particular console.
 
Walmart do have their figures estimated by NPD though... which I assume would try to take special deals into consideration.
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
and they've been turning year over year profits for 2 years running now.
Click to expand...

That maybe true, however they could make a profit for the last two years and the X360 division could still be in the red due to the billions spent to launch the system (and replacing millions of defective units).
 
to be fair the 360 is still a lot cheaper, the lower priced sku i mean, its still the cheapest console to buy, cheaper than the wii, nearly £100 difference in price when compared to the cheapest ps3!
 
Last edited:
JohnleMVP said:
As DragonMasterAlex already meantioned M$ isn't losing money only Sony is. Despite the RROD problem which cost billions in warranties, M$ was able to reduce their cost relatively quickly and started breaking even and profiting on their hardware (sku dependent). The biggest difference though is M$ is doing well with software sales and that's where the real money is made.

As far as the NPD numbers go its worth noting that Walmart the #1 retailer in America doesn't report to NPD. Which could matter if there was a extremely good deal for a particular console.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know Wal Mart doesn't report to NPD! They had some really good PS3 bundles and some mediocre 360 bundles. My local wal mart, at least, didn't appear to be sold out of either console at any point through December, so who knows.

By the way, if you're going to say M$, you might as well say $ony too :)
 
Stereophile said:
That maybe true, however they could make a profit for the last two years and the X360 division could still be in the red due to the billions spent to launch the system (and replacing millions of defective units).
Click to expand...

They only lost an estimated 1 billion on RRoD (and at that, I vaguely recall the actual number being reported as lower, but who knows), but I have no idea how much they spent on the launch.

However, as JohnnieMVP mentioned, the difference is that MS is making money on the hardware and they're selling software faster than anybody else, which is where the real money is made. Any way you slice it, Sony's still hurting the most this gen, by a long shot.
 
Rash said:
to be fair the 360 is still a lot cheaper, the lower priced sku i mean, its still the cheapest console to buy, cheaper than the wii, nearly £100 difference in price when compared to the cheapest ps3!
Click to expand...

Same price as the Wii ($199) :). Still, amazingly, not selling as well, for reasons utterly unimaginable to me, given the vastly superior game library of the system for the same price point.

Guess it just goes to show, it's not all about the graphics :)
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Same price as the Wii ($199) :). Still, amazingly, not selling as well, for reasons utterly unimaginable to me, given the vastly superior game library of the system for the same price point.

Guess it just goes to show, it's not all about the graphics :)
Click to expand...

ah fair enough, over here in UK/europe the 360 has pretty much always been cheaper than the wii, at present £130-150 for the 360 for the arcade and £169 for the Wii. i agree i realy hoped the 360 would flatten the wii at those prices but the nintendo first party games are too strong.

Id be interested to see how much 3rd party support apart from ea and ubisoft the next gen wii actually gets
 
Rash said:
ah fair enough, over here in UK/europe the 360 has pretty much always been cheaper than the wii, at present £130-150 for the 360 for the arcade and £169 for the Wii. i agree i realy hoped the 360 would flatten the wii at those prices but the nintendo first party games are too strong.

Id be interested to see how much 3rd party support apart from ea and ubisoft the next gen wii actually gets
Click to expand...

My bet is that the first thing it'll receive is ports of every big franchise 360 and PS3 game built :p. I didn't realize 360 was cheaper than Wii in the UK; interesting indeed!
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
My bet is that the first thing it'll receive is ports of every big franchise 360 and PS3 game built :p. I didn't realize 360 was cheaper than Wii in the UK; interesting indeed!
Click to expand...

yes its been roughly £50 cheaper in europe ever since the first arcade pack came out, and nearly half the price of a ps3 for that time aswell, your right i bet res evil 5 is one of the first games on the next gen nintendo
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Let's see. Apps, mail servers, database servers, Office, all kinds of stuff.
Click to expand...
All that can be done just as well or better with OS X or Linux.

Microsoft lost lots of money last gen, but surprisingly not that much this gen, and they've been turning year over year profits for 2 years running now.
Click to expand...
The 360 is still roughly $2.5 billion in the red. One decent year and one mediocre year doesn't make up for over $3 billion in losses the first two years. Sure it's better than the $4 billion they lost on the original Xbox, but that's not saying much.
 
Last edited:
BladeVenom said:
The 360 is still roughly $2.5 billion in the red. One decent year and one mediocre year doesn't make up for over $3 billion in losses the first two years. Sure it's better than the $4 billion they lost on the original Xbox, but that's not saying much.
Click to expand...
It's largely irrelevant though. The markets care how much you're making now, not how much you lost then. Sure, if you were to look at is as a project, it'll likely never make its money back, but that matters more in terms of how you go about the next project than how you continue this one.
 
BladeVenom said:
All that can be done just as well or better with OS X or Linux.


The 360 is still roughly $2.5 billion in the red. One decent year and one mediocre year doesn't make up for over $3 billion in losses the first two years. Sure it's better than the $4 billion they lost on the original Xbox, but that's not saying much.
Click to expand...

No, it can't be done as well or better with Linux. As a 15 year industry professional I will tell you unequivocally that although Linux is a good solution for a lot of things, it simply could NOT replace Windows in the Enterprise. It simply isn't mature enough, and likely never will be.

And OSX for server platforms? Are you JOKING?!
 
BladeVenom said:
All that can be done just as well or better with OS X or Linux.
Click to expand...

Who are you kidding? OSX for business? Maybe small business, but there's a reason OSX supports Active Directory (M$). Apple doesn't even offer products aimed at large corporations.

Linux is great because its free and open source. If you need a huge server farm it often makes sense to figure out how to use linux and not have to pay a fee for the software license on each box. You may still pay for support with an SLA and a higher price for employees who are truly linux experts. Linux is just the OS though, Microsoft offers a lot more than an OS for business (Office, Outlook/Exchange, SQL Server, SSRS, SSIS, Visual Studio, Sharepoint, Infopath, etc). Are all there products the best, of course not, but some are and no other company can offer as much. A company can buy Microsoft solutions which all use Active directory or buy a bunch of other products that each have their own methods of user manage. FUN!
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
No, it can't be done as well or better with Linux. As a 15 year industry professional I will tell you unequivocally that although Linux is a good solution for a lot of things, it simply could NOT replace Windows in the Enterprise. It simply isn't mature enough, and likely never will be.

And OSX for server platforms? Are you JOKING?!
Click to expand...

I was talking about gaming and home use. Besides that doesn't Google and IBM both use Linux.

BladeVenom said:
All it did for MS was increase Mac sales. If you're gaming on an 360 what do you need Windows for?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yep, and I said they had, "One decent year and one mediocre year." Check all the years before that and you will see billion dollar losses.
 
BladeVenom said:
I was talking about gaming and home use. Besides that doesn't Google and IBM both use Linux.
Click to expand...

Your response to mail and database server is in reference to gaming and home use?
Google and IBM do not use linux exclusively. They also use plenty of M$ products including windows.

DragonMasterAlex said:
Let's see. Apps, mail servers, database servers, Office, all kinds of stuff.
Click to expand...
 
JohnleMVP said:
Who are you kidding? OSX for business? Maybe small business, but there's a reason OSX supports Active Directory (M$). Apple doesn't even offer products aimed at large corporations.

Linux is great because its free and open source. If you need a huge server farm it often makes sense to figure out how to use linux and not have to pay a fee for the software license on each box. You may still pay for support with an SLA and a higher price for employees who are truly linux experts. Linux is just the OS though, Microsoft offers a lot more than an OS for business (Office, Outlook/Exchange, SQL Server, SSRS, SSIS, Visual Studio, Sharepoint, Infopath, etc). Are all there products the best, of course not, but some are and no other company can offer as much. A company can buy Microsoft solutions which all use Active directory or buy a bunch of other products that each have their own methods of user manage. FUN!
Click to expand...

Well put, and the choice is clear: Easier management=less management, which translates to fewer high paid employees to manage it all, and in the end, cost savings.

I like Linux for a lot of things, but in the enterprise, it's not likely to be a top dog at any point in the near future. And from what efforts Apple *hasn't* made targeting the enterprise, I'd say that platform is NEVER going to hit the big time in business.
 
BladeVenom said:
I was talking about gaming and home use. Besides that doesn't Google and IBM both use Linux.
Click to expand...

Having worked for IBM, you might be distressed to find out that they do NOT use Linux on the desktop nor even in all their servers. IBM has a LARGE MS Active Directory infrastructure, in point of fact. It's certainly true that they use a lot of Linux, more so than most any other business I've been involved with over the years, but it's still not dominant.

I haven't been to Google (though they're just down the way a bit), but I'd bet money they have hundreds, if not thousands, of Windows desktops.
 
JohnleMVP said:
Your response to mail and database server is in reference to gaming and home use?
Click to expand...

BladeVenom asked "If you're gaming on a 360, what do you need Windows for?"

Is it your opinion that most gamers are running database servers, mail servers, or using their home desktops for enterprise purposes? DMA brought up servers, you continued the argument, BladeVenom *started* with gaming. Don't blame him for changing the subject back to what it originally was. Other than gaming, what does the average person need windows for? Pretty much nothing.
 
Spewn said:
BladeVenom asked "If you're gaming on a 360, what do you need Windows for?"

Is it your opinion that most gamers are running database servers, mail servers, or using their home desktops for enterprise purposes? DMA brought up servers, you continued the argument, BladeVenom *started* with gaming. Don't blame him for changing the subject back to what it originally was. Other than gaming, what does the average person need windows for? Pretty much nothing.
Click to expand...

I brought up servers because he asked what is Windows needed for. Countless server products either unavailable or untenable on other platforms is a pretty good reason to use Windows.

Does any home user "need" any particular OS? No, except to do their basic activities such as email, word processing, web browsing and so on, which just about any OS can handle. However, the depth and breadth of apps and ways in which to do these tasks is greater on Windows than on any other platform, hands down.
 
Spewn said:
BladeVenom asked "If you're gaming on a 360, what do you need Windows for?"

Is it your opinion that most gamers are running database servers, mail servers, or using their home desktops for enterprise purposes? DMA brought up servers, you continued the argument, BladeVenom *started* with gaming. Don't blame him for changing the subject back to what it originally was. Other than gaming, what does the average person need windows for? Pretty much nothing.
Click to expand...

BladeVenom response to DragonMasterAlex post on "servers" was that "All that can be done just as well or better with OS X or Linux." After counter points were made he said, "I was talking about gaming and home use. Besides that doesn't Google and IBM both use Linux." That would have been a better response previously before engaging in the conversation about "servers."

http://www.hardforums.com/showpost.php?p=1035194365&postcount=60
 
Well, I don't want to argue too much about whether anybody misspoke or anything, we all do it from time to time. I'll just say this: Gaming on a 360 has no bearing on whether anybody has need for Windows or not.
 
Psychotext said:
Reminds me of that Sony slide...

8aex5sg.jpg


I bet they wish they were back in the PS2 glory days. Because the Wii is in exactly the same place the PS2 was when they showed that slide... and the Wii didn't get the headstart the PS2 did either.
Click to expand...

You know, the more I look at this the more I think, THIS is what went wrong with Sony and with PSP and PS3. This kind of ARROGANCE never ends well for the "big dogs", as Nintendo can attest to all too well.

Hopefully being throttled by Wii and sorta bitch-slapped by 360 will make them a little more humble next round so they'll think about what the CONSUMER wants instead of what THEY want. At least find a place in between, a happy medium somewhere.
 
I just find it funny that if nintendo never sold another Wii, MS and sony still probably wouldnt catch them in sales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top