Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Game Consoles Sell Over 3.2 Million Units in November

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the that's-a-spicy-meatball dept.

The Almighty Buck 95

Ground Glass writes "While there wasn't any question that November was going to be a huge month for gaming (what with those two consoles coming out and all), it's still impressive to see the numbers. In short, Nintendo's DS was the big winner with over 600,000 units sold, though the Wii and Xbox 360 also each broke half a million. The PS3 probably came in at around 200K all told for the month. Convert those numbers into dollars and you're looking at one very fat and happy industry." From the Next Generation article: "In its monthly report analyst Arcadia Investment says console sales in November topped 3.2 million units. Arcadia says hardware sales increased by at least 50% year on year, with software up about 20%. Retail dollars increased by about 25-30% to about $1.6 billion, compared to $1.3 billion in November 2005. "

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (4, Interesting)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137908)

Remember when Nintendo had a game machine that was low-powered, but had an innovative control scheme many initially derided as gimmicky, and it was in direct competition with a higher-powered, much more expensive, Sony product which could play movies in a new and effectively proprietary format?

Apparently, it wasn't a bad plan.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (1)

spwolfx (1029734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138112)

Nintendo always had such machine, and Sony always has had exact opposite... It has worked for both, realistically.
I doubt anyone would claim "victory" if Sony released PS3 which is PS2 with new controller...

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138372)

When before the PSP was Sony's offering higher-powered (except in terms of sheer disk space) than Nintendo's?

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138520)

As the AC pointed out, both the Nintendo 64 and the Gamecube were far more powerful (in terms of CPU, memory, and Graphics capability) that their Sony competitors.

While it is frequently bandied about that the Wii is only as powerful as the original Xbox, this isn't true either. The Gamecube itself was as powerful (in terms of CPU and grpahics capability, although it did have slightly less RAM, the performance of both was about the same) as the original Xbox. In reality, I think its pretty clear that beefed up Gamecube is more than adequate for gaming at 480p

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (1)

spwolfx (1029734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140050)

depends on what do you think as adequate - lots of gamers that have gamecube say new Wii games are actually not better graphically than latest Gamecube games. It is pretty obvious that Wii is not about latest graphics.

Maybe Gamecube was more powerful than PS2, however that was an failure - Nintendo trying to compete with Sony in graphics. Otherwise, whenever they played on their true strenghts - they did really well - just check how AWESOME DS Lite is doing, and its graphics are not in the same galaxy as PSP's. So in their basics, Sony and Nintendo cater to apsolutly opposite type of gamer, which is why they have been co-existing for quite an while now.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141014)

lots of gamers that have gamecube say new Wii games are actually not better graphically than latest Gamecube games.
Same could be said about early 360 games which also where not much better than original games. The only reason PS3 games look so good is because the PS2 is the oldest and slowest of the bunch. That being said, its also going to be a long time before anything looks better than the less powerful 360, as developers loath working on the Cell.

As it was many feel that people didnt get enough out of the GC yet, so its not surprising that its taking longer for third partys who shunned the GC to pick up the pace and develop nice looking Wii games. Pretty soon though as more third partys realize that they are going to have to get on the Wii bandwagon if they ever expect to sell a decent amount of games, those graphics are going to improve.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17142344)


Same could be said about early 360 games which also where not much better than original games.

Ok, this isn't even remotely true. I'm not a fanboy, I own pretty much every system ever made (all Nintendo systems except the Wii, and including such winners as the Virtual Boy and Pokemon Mini), but the XBox 360 blows away the original XBox games. I'm guessing you've never seen Oblivion? That game is absolutely mind-blowing -- quite frankly I was completely cynical about this generation adding anything new to games, but the incredible level of realism really sold me on it... the immersion is amazing and really brings the games alive. I always thought that while the PSX/Saturn/N64 era introduced 3D, it wasn't until the Dreamcast that it was any good... now I think we didn't have real 3D until the 360.

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

You said it, pal.

Yes, it's true (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17143000)

Same could be said about early 360 games which also where not much better than original games.
Ok, this isn't even remotely true.

Yes, it is. He said "early." While there were some nice looking "launch window" titles, lots looked like high-res PS2 games. Look at shit like Tony Hawk's or Gun.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (1)

vega80 (852274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150218)

But we pretty much know what the WiiCube can do. Look at the best looking GC games - that's the benchmark. You're not going to see graphics much better on the Wii than the best looking GC games. As many have already said, the Wii has basically the same hardware as the GC, whereas the PS3 and 360 are a generational leap in power.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17166700)

Wii has basically the same hardware as the GC
Not true at all. Same chipset yes... but the PIII and PIV where basically the same chipset too. Whats different is speed, the Wii's CPU and GPU are 75% faster than the GC. Thats a marked improvement, maybe not as much as the 360, but still much better than the GC. What makes this better though is because its the same chipset, they can get the most out of it soon than the 360 will, since your relearning how to code for it (since it went from a x86 platform to a PowerPC one) though not nearly as hard as it will be for the PS3 with its big old look at me Cell chip that the dev houses didnt even have coding kits for till July.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17140576)

Uhhh, no, the Gamecube was not as powerful as the Xbox. Not even close. This is made painfully clear in many cross-platform games that either never made it to the gamecube at all (probably for the better), or paled in comparison to even the PS2 version.

You're wrong (2)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17143102)

Yes, cross-platform games often look worse on the Cube than on the Xbox. That's due to bad ports, not due to the Cube - your PS2 comparison should have told you that. Look at games made specifically for the Cube. Compare the best-looking Cube games to the best-looking Xbox games, and then tell me the Xbox is significantly faster than the Cube. The Cube has games like Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime. The Xbox has some nice looking games, too, but nothing that really outshines the Cube's offerings.

Re:You're wrong (1)

Soygen (911358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17145190)

I agree, for the most. Ninja Gaiden, however, was pretty damn nice looking on the Xbox.

Re:DS + Wii vs. PSP + PS3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17141418)

Yeah Thats right we all know the WII is the best there is

Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (2, Interesting)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138058)

(Numbers are approximate, they didn't have exact numbers in the article)
DS (600K+) > XBox360 (500K++) > PS2 (500K+) > Wii (500K) > PSP (350K) > PS3 (~200K)


It looks like the PS2 and the Xbox 360 are both outselling the new consoles- which is surprising to me. Still, it seems Nintendo is the big winner, since they are selling an average of two games per Wii on top of actually selling a console for a profit. Microsoft seems to be doing a lot better with their 360 sales than I expected they would- I guess people decided getting a Wii or PS3 wasn't worth the effort when there was an good console readily available.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (4, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138220)

The Wii and PS3 are hampered by availability. Although if I were Sony, the high volume of PS2 would scare me- all the PS3 brings to the table is more power. If people are still buying the PS2, then power won't be enough. It puts the Wii in a real spot to win this round, as they aren't counting on the processing power to win.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139106)

If I were Sony I wouldn't be worred about PS2 sales. Every sale means profit and more potential converts to the PS3. Maybe not today but in a few years from now. Perhaps they even see the PS2 as a good way to stay in a holding pattern until the price of the PS3 becomes more reasonable.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (2, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139536)

With consoles, you don't have time. If people don't buy your console now, then developers won't target it (they'll target the Wii, 360, or PS2). If devs don't target it, it won't sell in the future either. Getting a large install base early is an absolute necessity, or you won't have one late.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

Frumply (999178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140254)

The 360's definitely proven in Japan that a hardware flop is difficult to overcome. Though, with little widespread availability of reasonably-priced HDTVs (your only choices are the Japanese brands which charge ~$2000 for 32-inch LCDs), lack of popularity of FPSs, and resistance to non-Japanese brands it's not too surprising.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

WageDomain (996331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150820)

With the Blue Dragon 360 bundle, though, preorders have been selling out in Japan, which seems to imply that the 360 may just do alright there after all.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

Frumply (999178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17158452)

How many were available for preorder, though? I believe a similar thing occurred for preorders on one of Konami or Namco's arcade games that is being released on the 360: low expectations lead to a low supply of pre-order 'limited editions' available, which sold out very quickly. With PS3s and Wiis being nearly impossible to purchase though, the xbox is in a good position as it's the only one working parents would have a chance of getting. Now that they have a Blue Dragon comic started to coincide w/ the game release, I'll see how much they're pushing this game in the Osaka area.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (2, Informative)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140678)

Why should the high volumes of the PS2 scare Sony? It's exactly what happened with the PS1 when the PS2 came out. Sony overlaps their consoles in order to compensate for the fact that they initially take a loss on new ones. The PS2 has a good year in it making Sony money while the PS3 ramps up, while the GC and Xbox are quite dead by now (with TP being the GC's last hurrah).

And you say "processing power" as if it doesn't matter. The SNES was just an NES with more processing power. The PS2 was just a PS1 with more processing power, etc. The new consoles have a *lot* more processing power than the previous gen. Clever developers will use this for more immersive environments, more realistic AI, etc. For example, the 360 and PS3 are really the first consoles that have the horsepower to do realistic physics, allowing for more complex gameplay. They're also the first ones to have the horsepower to do truely interactive environments (destructible geometry, etc). As game developers get more comfortable with these new architectures, you're going to see games that you just couldn't do on previous consoles, graphics aside.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141484)

Truthfully, more processing power matters less and less as the power of the older one increases. The SNES->NES was a big increase only because the original NES was so weak. The increase from SNES->N64/PS generation was much smaller, if that hadn't been the time all games went 3D it would have been barely noticed. The difference in games from PS->PS2 wasn't noticable. Now? The difference doesn't add anything. The only reason to upgrade is because developers will stop targeting the old platforms soon. Or because of a total change in direction, like Wii is going for. But even quadrupling the processing power of current machines just won't make a difference- we hit he point where the limit to gaming innovation was imagination, not power, about a decade ago.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (3, Insightful)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141824)

Bullshit. Dvorak was spouting off in the mid 1990s about how nobody would ever need anything more than a 200 MHz Pentium. It wasn't true then, it's not true now.

The NES to SNES upgrade was actually relatively minor. You got more colors and bigger sprites, but the CPU was still weak, so the games were the same, but prettier. The SNES -> N64 transition was huge. It was the first console that could do 3D properly. Mario 64 changed platformers completely, and would not have been possible on any previous console. FPS as a genre wasn't really feasible until then either. The PS2 was the first console that had the horsepower to have complex environments, because the N64 and PS could not push enough polygons to do more than very simplistic environments.

This generation is potentially as interesting as the N64 one. The new consoles have an order of magnitude more power than the previous gen, and more importantly, they have a lot of power that's independent of the graphics pipeline. Wheras the main CPU in the PS2 spends much of its time crunching geometry to feed the rasterizer, the geometry processor in the RSX frees the Cell in the PS3 from much of that. Wheras previous consoles had to squeeze in AI and physics into a small slice of time between handling graphics code, the current batch can spend a lot of main CPU time on those things.

Gears of War is really a prime example. Even if you toned down the graphics, such a game could not be done on previous-gen systems. They don't have the horsepower to do either the physics, nor the level complexity (battlefields strewn with junk that serves as cover).

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17144248)

FPS as a genre wasn't really feasible on a console until then either.
fixed it for ya :)

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17146496)

It depends on what you mean by "FPS". You can count Doom and Duke Nukem as FPSs, but the SNES was capable of running those too. I consider Quake to be the first true FPS, in that its the first one to give you a real first person view (you can look around). The N64 was released the day after Quake. Also, th efirst PC graphics board capable of running Quake properly (the Voodoo 1) wasn't released until four months later.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17149072)

Actually the first Quake like fps was Ultima underworld and that one already had full physics, multiple levels etc... bridges gaps etc... and full environmental interaction, and ghasp it came out months before castle wolfenstein 3d. Just to show how advanced the Looking Glass games really were :-)

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17158010)

It depends on what you mean by "FPS". You can count Doom and Duke Nukem as FPSs, but the SNES was capable of running those too.
Duke Nukem 3D was never released for the SNES. There is a leaked beta for the Genesis [wikipedia.org] probably made by East Asian pirates, but it's nothing like the original PC version and frankly doesn't even reach the level of say Wolfenstein 3D.

Also, while Doom was released for the SNES, it barely used SNES's own hardware - the Doom cartridge contained its own 20 MHz RISC CPU to do all the pseudo-3D rendering. And it had a ridiculously low resolution (less than the PC version). And it was still ungodly slow to be playable, while a 33 MHz PC ran Doom fine.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17160820)

I think the general consensus is that ken's labyrinth, wolfenstein 3d, and doom are the father, son, and holy ghost of FPS genre. Just because you consider Quake to be the first, it doesn't make you right. . .

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (2, Insightful)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17146122)

The PS2 was the first console that had the horsepower to have complex environments, because the N64 and PS could not push enough polygons to do more than very simplistic environments.

*cough*Dreamcast*cough*

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

NEW22 (137070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17148074)

Exactly!

Long live the Dreamcast. I mean, a modem and web browser too! One of my favorite systems ever.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141768)

The SNES was just an NES with more processing power.

First console to incorporate scanline rotation and scaling in hardware (Mode 7), allowing for much more realistic racing games (compare F-Zero to Rad Racer 2). First console controller to incorporate dual cross keys and shoulder buttons. The plain old "more CPU" console upgrade was Sega Master System -> Genesis.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17143808)

Congrats. You mentioned the single game that took advantage of Mode 7 and actually made it work. ;) The Snes allowed bigger games and decent console ports. It was still the same old, same old.

Mode 7 not a one-trick pony (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17144366)

You mentioned the single game [F-Zero] that took advantage of Mode 7 and actually made it work. ;)

Single game, or single genre? There are plenty of mode 7 racing games that work. Even non-racing games can use mode 7 to improve the overall quality of experience. Start with Pilotwings, then see Actraiser that uses it for cut scenes or Super Mario RPG that uses it for a mine cart level.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

dank zappingly (975064) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141966)

High sales of PS2 would scare you? It is the only last-gen console that still has good games coming out. What this says to me is that people who can't afford/can't/don't want to get the new consoles prefer PS2. I think that is good for Sony because when these systems crap out and they decide to move to the next generation they will probably move to the brand who supported the console for the longest period of time, the one with the familiar controllers that they can play all their old games on. That price difference won't look so bad at that point. I don't care what anyone says, there are still 100 million satisfied people with playstations out there, and that number continues to grow. The company who should be scared of the high volume of PS2 sales is Microsoft. They have been the only next-gen console on the market for the bulk of this year, and they are still being outsold by a six year old console.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17145870)

The Wii and PS3 are hampered by availability. Although if I were Sony, the high volume of PS2 would scare me- all the PS3 brings to the table is more power.

At the risk of being labeled a fanboy, this is 100% false. Over the Ps2, the Ps3 brings multiplayer capability out of the box (at least 4 players vs. 2 on the Ps2), Wireless control standard on all gamepads, MUCH better online infrastructure, The Ability to play Blu-Ray movies (a BIG plus if you have a high def tv), Downloadable classic games for 6 bucks a pop (playable on the Ps3 with a firmware update in december, I believe) AND a fully operational Linux distro to play around with on the included 20 gig/60 gig hard drive- opening the system up to photo editing, word processing, web browsing, you name it. (yes, I'm aware of Ps2 linux, but its far more limited and the average user couldnt run that.) People have even gotten emulators running on it already playing classic games.

And that's ignoring the HUGE jump in power between the two consoles. In terms of features, Sony actually did do pretty much everything right in designing the Ps3 as a followup to the PS2- the only major screwups have been with the price (which will drop as all things do eventually) and availability.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17147860)

Agreed. I went to Walmart on the day they were supposed to get more Wii's in (Dec. 6th). They had already sold out. Apparently 7 of the 11 people who waited in line all night managed to snag one. And this weeks after the console's launch.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

hadek (199193) | more than 7 years ago | (#17149354)

I think AuMatar has a good point Wii might win this round. At the same time I think Sony has a potential to win the war. More PS2 on the market will only create more loyal followers. Now if only game makers would continue created GOOD games for PS2. I'm just waiting for some brave game maker to copy functionality of Wii's controller and start producing games.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138246)

Well, the Xbox 360 was out for the entire month of November and widely available. The Wii and PS3 were available for part of the month and were in high demand...

With the negative opinions of the PS3 and the increase in HDTV uptake, it's not too entirely surprising.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138312)

That the PS2 still sells is not surprising at all - it costs only $125 or so, IIRC, and has a library, and with new titles still coming out.

The new systems won't be fully entrenched for at least 2 years.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138552)

Shouldn't be that surprising. Both the Wii and PS3 are heavily supply limited - they both sold out immediately (or before), and every reshipment has sold out just as quickly. Essentially, the sales figures for both consoles represent 100% of consoles shipped to retailers so far.

The Xbox 360 has been out for a year, the PS2 for five, so they aren't supply limited anymore. The PS2 is also dirt cheap right now. It's impressive that the Wii has managed to keep pace with them.

Oh, and those Wii and PS3 figures are for two weeks, not the whole month.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17143666)

It looks like the PS2 and the Xbox 360 are both outselling the new consoles- which is surprising to me.

Not surprising at all. I can go into any store and walk away with a DS, XBox360, or PS2 with absolutely no effort. The Wii and PS3 will be hot Christmas items... NEXT YEAR. As a parent there is no way I'm standing in a fucking line overnight in sub-freezing temperatures with a bunch of fat smelly nerds just so I can satisfy my greedy child's lust for yet another piece of Japanese materialistic crap. That seems to be a consensus of a lot of people. Also, to the fuckers selling the Wiis and PS3s on eBay: go die in a fire.

Re:Ranked in terms of consoles sold last month: (1)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17190116)

>>It looks like the PS2 and the Xbox 360 are both outselling the new consoles- which is surprising to me.

We have a PS1, Gameboy Advance, and plan on buying a WII. The Nintendo caters to the younger children with more games that are not so violent.

But this is not a Christmas gift, it is a goal for the kids. A reward.

I have asked when I happen to be in the electronic departments if they have any WII's and it is usually "We had (5-20) on (day of week) and expect another shipment of the same on (same day of week.)"

Often I here others asking about the WII. I have not once heard of anyone asking for a PS3. I think price is the issue here. Several times I have seen people give up(?) and end up with an XBOX 360.

While I understand they want to work the bugs out (such as the WII firmware issue) they really should have done that quicker and had enough consoles to buy this Christmas season. Sony and Nintendo are going to loose a lot of sales to XBOX 360, in my opinion.

Convert those numbers into... negative dollars (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138174)

With Linux running on the PS3 which is sold at a loss, I'm not sure where this is going for Sony.

Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (2, Interesting)

Straif (172656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138180)

Of the big 3, generally only Nintendo actually makes a profit off their gaming systems in the first year of release.

By some estimates Sony is subsidizing the PS3 to the tune of $300/unit while Microsoft is probably just about breaking even on systems. The big money for Microsoft and Sony comes from game sales, and the only solid numbers I've seen in that category were for Zelda units for the Wii (400k+).

So on the money side Nintendo has made a hefty profit from their 1.1 million+ units sold, Microsoft, having learned their lesson the the original XBox is probably doing ok especially with their major head start in game sales, while Sony needs to get more of their systems into peoples homes to try and generate more disc sales. Sony's saving grace may be that they'll also get money from the boost in blu-ray movie sales.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

tlh1005 (541240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139126)

I know that MS said it lost X dollars per xbox sold and now Sony is claiming the same with the PS3, but I alway wonder how much of that is cold hard cash. I'm thinking most of it is moving numbers around from one cost center to another, counting R&D hours that goto develop and support the product, that sort of thing. Yes, I know you've gotta pay people to do this there still is just a slight difference in my opinion from Sony taking $300 out of the bank and burning it everytime someone buys a PS3.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140250)

Sony is claiming [they are losing money] with the PS3

Source?

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 7 years ago | (#17142768)

The difference is a recurring cost versus a nonrecurring cost. If your profit per unit is higher than your per item, you want to sell as many as possible even if you've sunk a lot into NRE. But I thought that it was said that Microsoft was selling the xbox for lower than the per item cost.

MS rumored to be making $75 per console sold (1)

xswl0931 (562013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139956)

You must not follow the news. http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=6919 [isuppli.com] I suspect MS isn't getting the whole $75, they are probably taking $50 and leaving retailers with $25 per unit, so that they have more incentive to push 360 sales.

Re:MS rumored to be making $75 per console sold (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140306)

Your numbers are whack. There is no way in hell the motherboards cost that much (for either system), and several other of those numbers look rather sketchy. In addition, this estimate only covers the manufacturing and assembly of the machines; it does not cover R&D, shipping, marketing, nor anything else that factors into the cost of the system. Better luck next time.

Re:MS rumored to be making $75 per console sold (2, Interesting)

aricept (810752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140830)

Not to say that the numbers are not incorrect, but the number listed for "Motherboard" on the side by side comparison includes everything ON the MB - CPU, GPU, memory; you can tally the numbers from the first list of individual parts.

Re:MS rumored to be making $75 per console sold (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141300)

Using that formula, then absolutely no console will make any money at all period. Because the $100 per console made per WII for the first year will not make up for it's development costs either. Unless you are thinking that the first WII, PS3, Xbox360 will be sold for multi-millions and the rest is pure profit it's got to be that way.

So when people say that MS & Nintendo are making a profit on each device at this time, it means that they aren't being sold for a loss. None of them have paid off their development costs, but they are in a position where they aren't subsidising the equipment anymore. The stuff you are talking about can't be calculated per console at this time, and actually you can't really count it until the end of the console's manufacturing lifetime to see if overall you made money per console or not.

I'm not sure why you are thinking it would be anyway else (but your last statement sure cements that you are thinking that it's different).

Re:MS rumored to be making $75 per console sold (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141754)

Because the $100 per console made per WII for the first year will not make up for it's development costs either.

Few manufactured items, in particular innovative ones are profitable in their first year by those standards. Accountants have a neat trick called amortization, which can assume that initial costs are considered over the expected lifetime of the item. Also, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but I'd be very surprised if any manufacturer every made $100 each on anything selling for a retail price of $250 per unit.

Re:MS rumored to be making $75 per console sold (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141900)

The $100 number isn't supposed to be anything even remotely close to reality, it being overly high was meant to try and show that even if Nintendo were to be able to make a very improbable $100 per $250 console, that they wouldn't be able to recoupe their development, R/D, etc costs within any short period of time.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (0, Troll)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140166)

Of the big 3, generally only Nintendo actually makes a profit off their gaming systems in the first year of release.

"Generally"? So this is a historical trend, and you can produce hard evidence that this is the case? By the way, bullshit figures from "financial" "analysts" don't count.

By some estimates Sony is subsidizing the PS3 to the tune of $300/unit while Microsoft is probably just about breaking even on systems.

Once again, where are your sources? Nobody knows how much the PS3 really costs because Sony does most of the manufacturing themselves. Good luck getting accurate numbers there. And good luck explaining how MS is "probably" breaking even right now.

The big money for Microsoft and Sony comes from game sales

So this is why the Xbox division lost billions over the life of the original Xbox? Check your math, bud.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17145906)

So this is why the Xbox division lost billions over the life of the original Xbox?

Yes because they couldn't sell enough games. To be fair, they'd probably have to sell like 50 games per console to break even.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164056)

Sony may put together the parts themselves but unless they're employing magic elves in their production facilities they have to get those parts from somewhere.

Most of the cost analysis comes from looking at the separate components, seagate HD, IBM processor, ATI processor, Samsung RAM, etc.. and looking at the associated costs with either purchasing the part or licensing the design, and even includes volume discounts. These costs are relatively stable and well known. The guesstimating comes in when trying to calculate the SONY only parts but even there they can use some similar items to come up with ball park figures. So while you can argue with a person who is claiming to know exactly what the system cost is, when the rough estimates puts the cost in the multiple hundreds above purchase price you can bet that they are not making up the difference with innovative production techniques.

As for historical trends, you could look at Business Week [businessweek.com] or Cnet [com.com] or just google it but you've managed to answered your own question with your last statement, "why the Xbox division lost billions over the life of the original Xbox?". Simply put, they could not overcome their loss leading system prices with adequate games sales. Add to that the R&D costs and advertising and they created too much of a hole to dig themselves out of with a 4.75:1 game to system ratio (the last number I could find). If the systems had been making a profit from the get go they may still have lost money overall, but unless their R&D costs were in the double digit billions they would not come out as far behind as they did.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17142392)

Of the big 3, generally only Nintendo actually makes a profit off their gaming systems in the first year of release.

I love this fanboy logic... we're supposed to worship Nintendo because they make more money off of us?

Let me put this in simple terms that even a Wii fan can understand:

With Nintendo, you pay $250 to get $200 worth of machine
With Sony, you pay $600 to get $1000 worth of machine
With Microsoft, you pay $400 to get $700 worth of machine

Gee, where's the Kool-Aid stand? But please feel free to cut in with the usual bleating of how the Wii is "fun" (including it's charming system errors), and you'll gladly pay $5 to buy Super Mario Brothers for the Nth time. But I digrees, and quite frankly I guess you nutjobs will take anything after the debacle that was third-party support for the GameCube.

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17146238)

With Nintendo, you pay $250 to get $200 worth of machine
With Sony, you pay $600 to get $1000 worth of machine
With Microsoft, you pay $400 to get $700 worth of machine


With Nintendo, you pay $250 on a $200 machine and Nintendo invests $300 into game development
With Sony, you pay $600 to get a $900 machine
With Microsoft, you pay $400 to get a $700 machine

Being that I could care less about Blu-Ray and am only buying this for games I wonder which I should buy ... I can buy one machine for $250 which has the highest rated game of the year, and looks to have dozens of interesting and unique titles comming out for it in the next couple of months. I could also pay $400 to get a pretty powerful machine that has a few pretty cool exclusive games already out for it with a few more comming out soon, it also seems to have every multiplatform game available for it. Or I could spend $600 on a Blu-Ray player that has 1 worthwile exclusive game on it and tons of inferior ports from a less expensive system.

Hmmmm ... What am I (a videogame player) going to do?

Profit matters, every dollar that was "invested" in hardware is a dollar that isn't going to software development ...

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17147968)

Let me explain something to you.
PS-3
What good is a $1000 machine that doesn't play any games that you want even if it only costs $600? So far I have heard of one good game of the PS-3 and that is nothing but YAFPS. Your buying it for the future? Why not wait until more games come out and see if it is really worth it. Guess what it isn't going to go up in price.
Blue-ray? I really don't care since none of the movies I really want to see are on Blue-Ray yet and unless their is a massive shake out it looks as if we will all be buying Dual mode players at some point in the future. I see no reason to be an experiment.
X-Box 360
I never owned an XBox but you know what? The 360 looks like it has turned into a good system. The price is a little more than I want to pay for a game system but it seems fair. Lots of good games, good online support, in all I am sad to say it looks like a good system.
The Wii.
I really enjoy my Gamecube more than my PS2. I enjoy playing the games on it a lot. I have played some games on the Wii and guess what I like it. So the Wii is probably going to be my next console, followed by the 360.
I see no compelling reason to buy a PS3. If it succeeds it will come down in price and get better games. If nothing else it will become more available.

I really don't understand this fanboy stuff at all. Why should I care who wins as long as I can play some good games?

Re:Units sold doesn't necessarily mean profit (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 7 years ago | (#17163124)

Really, WTF?

Did I even mention which system I like the most?

I merely stated that to the best of my knowledge, Nintendo is the only game manufacturer that makes a profit of their hardware from day 1 meaning that even though a lot of cash is changing hands Sony, and to a lesser extent Microsoft, have to wait to see the numbers on game sales before they become "fat and happy".

That doesn't make their system any more powerful or fun to play or even more profitable over it's lifetime, just that when comparing sales of new systems in the first year even with strong system sales Sony and Microsoft are not guaranteed profits.

That I'm responding to a AC troll is just a indicator of how bored I am at work today.

Xbox 360 Sales - Ouch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138184)

The 360 would have had to sell in the 700k+ range to have any chance of breaking out of its sales rut. So far the 360 is tracking just under the first Xbox's first year sales - some months higher, some lower.

4.5 million 360s worldwide as of October:

http://static.flickr.com/108/313180999_44f2d9c7dd_ o.png [flickr.com]

At Frys a couple days ago there were two enormous stacks of 360s out in the console area(and who knows how many more in the back) and other people are saying the same thing about their local BestBuys. So it looks like Microsoft is trying to flood the retail stores in an attempt to be able to claim some shipped console number near 10 million. Can't be a smart move since there are going to be piles of 360s sitting around for the next few months and they are going to have to undership next quarter and any little benefit they get from claiming higher shipment numbers now will be offset with the reciprocal low shipment news next quarter.

Channel Stuffing (3, Interesting)

Boogaroo (604901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141132)

So it looks like Microsoft is trying to flood the retail stores in an attempt to be able to claim some shipped console number near 10 million. Can't be a smart move since there are going to be piles of 360s sitting around for the next few months and they are going to have to undership next quarter and any little benefit they get from claiming higher shipment numbers now will be offset with the reciprocal low shipment news next quarter.

There's a dirty little trick there that Sony's used before. What you do is recall the overshipment, and then re-ship to places that need it. You get to count those consoles as shipped twice. Nice isn't it?

Re:Channel Stuffing (1)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#17145758)

That's why I very much dislike both Microsoft and Sony when it comes to reporting their console numbers. Even assuming all 100 million PS2s last generation were only shipped once, there could be 20 million PS2s that haven't been bought. As you pointed out, there are any number of underhanded ways to bloat the number.

Nintendo's somewhat more honest, stating actual sales instead of shipped.

Even looking at sales we can't really get a good idea what the market share actually was. How many sold Xboxs and PS2s were to replace disk read errors, hard drive failures and other wear and tear? What about the extremely durable Gamecube?

I'm not going to claim that the PS2 wasn't dominant last generation or anything regarding where Nintendo or Microsoft stood, but the whole deal would have been a lot easier to understand if we could get better numbers from these companies.

Re:Xbox 360 Sales - Ouch! (1)

Siguy (634325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141550)

Where are you getting this 4.5 million number? That chart you link doesn't seem to have any listed sources. All the other online counters seem to have the 360s worldwide number at 6 or 7 million. In fact Microsoft announced 6 million 360's "sold" as of October, not 4.5. link [betanews.com] The difference between 4.5 and 6 million is pretty huge.

Re:Xbox 360 Sales - Ouch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17145118)

Um, it's Christmas time retard. People will be looking to buy a 360 for little Johnny. Those piles out on the floor will be sold during the busiest shopping period of the year.

could have been more (2, Insightful)

netsfr (839855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138210)

Could have been 3.2M + 1, but there are no Wii's to be found here, the store had 20 units the first day, and sold out since.

Sony keeps heavy advertising about the PS3, but what good does it do if they get me interested in it, all to have me go down to the store to look at an empty shelf... It's having the opposite effect, more of a turn off than getting me to want one at this point.

Re:could have been more (2, Informative)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138492)

A long time ago (probably a few years ago anyways) I was talking to someone in marketing about how most car comercials were awful and didn't make me want to spend $25,000+ and her reply was "Most comercials are not about attracting customers but are actually about making existing customers secure in their decision"

The fact is that there are so many PS3 comercials because Sony wants to make the fanboys think that the $600 they spent makes them own a cool product.

Re:could have been more (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138740)


The fact is that there are so many PS3 comercials because Sony wants to make the fanboys think that the $600 they spent makes them own a cool product.

The difference between the $25,000 car and the PS3 is that Sony actually NEEDS a lot of sales for the PS3, where the car company only needs to sell a (relative to the PS3) few $25,000 cars.

Making fanboys feel good about spending too much money does Sony little good. They actually need to convince millions of people to buy PS3s (and actually wait until there's enough of the things so you the several million people actually CAN buy it.

Re:could have been more (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138982)

From my very limited understanding the most effective way to sell something is to give someone first hand experience with it, followed by word of mouth, followed by recomendation from a trusted 'neutral' resource, followed by good research materials (mostly web-based now a days), and then finally active marketing. People tune out comercials unless they are highly interested in the product.

I suspect that why companies want people who have bought their product to feel secure about their purchase is that they will then let other people use their product (come over play my PS3), or they will recommend the product to their friend (wow the PS3's visuals are so amazing).

Where are the rest of the Wiis? (0, Flamebait)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138522)

I thought Nintendo shipped 1 million of these things at launch, so where are the other 500,000? They sure as hell aren't sitting on shelves.

Re:Where are the rest of the Wiis? (2, Informative)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138612)

I don't think Nintendo ever claimed that there was going to be 1,000,000 systems on launch day; I think there were a lot of rumors and speculation that if Nintendo was trying for 2,000,000 by January 1st that 1,000,000 of those would apear on the first day.

From what I understand Nintendo Shipped about 400,000 to 500,000 on day one with 200,000 to 250,000 every week following that; I have also heard that NPD's sales numbers for november end on November 26th so it is possible that they're missing 4 days of sales (and potentially 1 shipment), I don't know if this is true. All I know is that I have a friend who has been keeping touch with several retailers and is going back to stores several times a week (after they are supposed to get a shipment) but being that he can't get there when the store opens he has yet to be able to get a Wii. It seems that Nintendo is supplying a lot of units but can not match demand.

Re:Where are the rest of the Wiis? (1)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138948)

No, they're flying off them. I work in retail, my store got 20 in @ launch (I was #12:D ) and have recieved about 10 a week since then, which would sell out by the end of that morning. We also get about 10/1 calls asking about the wii vs ps3.

Wii profitable? No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17138744)

Nintendo's "profit" comes purely from them selling a system for more than its components. This doesn't take into consideration R&D, marketing, advertising, etc.

Xbox 360s are as "profitable" now as Wiis are since R&D costs can be spread out over millions of units instead of the big N's one million.

Wii profitable? Yes. (2, Insightful)

LKM (227954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17143180)

Uhm, the development costs are already accounted for. Nintendo paid them. It was in their past reports. The Wii isn't yet profitable as a project, but it is profitable in that it helps Nintendo make a profit at the end of the next quarter. Every Wii sold makes Nintendo money. Every PS3 sold makes Sony lose money.

Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (2, Interesting)

Frag-A-Muffin (5490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17138968)

"Convert those numbers into dollars and you're looking at one very fat and happy industry."

The only people we know for sure that's happy about all those consoles being moved is Nintendo.

*(1) Although, if you take console sales as an indirect indicator of software sales, then yes, the other guys would be happy too. More on this later

What we do know is this:

* Nintendo makes money on the Wii, right out of the gate.
* Nintendo makes money on each DS Lite sold.
* Sony's PS3 is losing $200-$300US (we don't exactly how much they're losing, but most analysts say about that range)
* Sony's PS2 hardware is profitable now.
* Microsoft was losing money on the Xbox360 at launch, but they've been working hard to reduce the cost to produce the 360, so it may be breaking even at this point. Only Microsoft knows.

So, Nintendo is certainly happy, Sony is happy PS2 still rakes it in but doesn't make up for PS3's enourmous costs, and Microsoft is happy to just be in the fight :)

*(1) Consoles moved means more software sales, which is where Microsoft and Sony plan to make their money back. (Nintendo makes money from selling ANYTHING with Nintendo on it, so we know they'll make money on software. They arguably make the most on software than any other single console game producer) Seems the internet believes Microsoft is enjoying a good software sales rate for their xbox360, they won't say of course. Meanwhile, Sony is just mum. Why? well, doesn't seem the attach rate for the PS3 is doing so hot in the US [ign.com] or Japan [joystiq.com] . So Sony's still far away from making money on their new system.

My point? The industry may or may not be happy, we don't know for sure, but we do know, Nintendo is happy with these numbers :)

PS WTF's with the 0.98 attach rate for PS3 in Japan?! That's amazing to me. I know lots of people are flipping these on ebay, but even in the land of the rising sun, people aren't buying it to play games. That's bad news. Japan's a huge Sony supporter. If they lose Japan, they're in trouble.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17139466)

I'd buy a PS3 just for movies. Saves you $300. The fact that it plays games would be an afterthough.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17148046)

I wouldn't. There's a pitiful selection of Blu-Ray movies and by the time that grows to acceptable levels Blu-Ray players will be cheaper and better than they are now. Provided the format doesn't get taken off the market before then, that is.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

kazad (619012) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139512)

I plugged in the numbers into an editable chart [tinyurl.com] (shameless plug for my site! :)

xbox360 = 500k * 400 = 200,000,000
ps3 = 200k * 600 = 120,000,000
wii = 500k * 250 = 125,000,000
ps2 = 500k * 129 = 64,500,000
nintendo_ds = 600k * 129 = 77,400,000
psp = 350k * 199 = 69,650,000

Based off pure revenue, Microsoft appears to take the lion's share with 30%. But as we all know, revenue and profit are quite different. You can play around with the numbers above to get a feel for who's coming out ahead - I may have a mistake in my formulas.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

Psychotext (262644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140826)

Handy. =) Change the numbers a bit and you've got an estimation of how much profit / loss there was too.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141480)

Erm. 125,000,000 + 77,400,000 = 202,400,000.

You also forgot gba = 500k * 69 = 34,500,000.

That brings us to 236,900,000, which I'm pretty sure is bigger than 200,000,000.

Would seem Nintendo is the winner here, no?

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

kazad (619012) | more than 7 years ago | (#17141952)

Good catch, thanks. I should have combined it company-wide in the beginning, I was focused on just the next-gen consoles.

I updated the numbers [tinyurl.com] and it actually looks like Sony actually pulled in the most revenue overall!

sony = ps3 + ps2 + psp = 254,150,000
microsoft = xbox360 = 200,000,000
nintendo = wii + nintendo_ds + gba = 236,900,000

Surprising, huh? Of course, the ps2 sales may be cannibalizing possible ps3 sales.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17145230)

I've seen it said many times but people really need to quit assuming that the PS2 may be eating away at PS3 profits. The PS3 is sold out everywhere that I've heard save for a few stories about there being some sitting on some random shelves. That's fine. But the PS2 isn't eating any sales, for now. It may eat future sales, but that remains to be seen. We'll only actually know that if, say 6 months to a year in the future there is still strong PS2 sales, and lackluster PS3 sales. Like if there were always lots of PS3's sitting on shelves taking space.

It's just too soon to think about the PS2 eating sales.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

Manmademan (952354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17146084)

Surprising, huh? Of course, the ps2 sales may be cannibalizing possible ps3 sales.

No way in hell. The ps2 has been out for 6 years already and runs only $125. Anyone who HASNT already bought one by now isn't really in the market for a $499 Ps3. The people buying PS2's now are primarily late adopters, curious Xbox and Gamecube owners looking to check out the PS2 game library (guitar hero is making lots of converts), and those buying second consoles and/or replacements for old and broken units. Not exactly the market for cutting edge early adopter hardware.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

challlen (642784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165594)

I like these numbers a lot.

I'd be curious to see these numbers over time.

However, in the end, it doesn't mean much without the software sales.
Does anyone have numbers for the software sales for each of these platforms?

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

WaXHeLL (452463) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140130)

There's much more to sales than just the attach rate.

Sure, attach rate measures direct sales (how many games are bought with a console). However, people are much less likely to buy games when they know they're flipping a console on ebay. Anyone can buy games for the PS3, and people on ebay actually are LESS likely to pay a premium on included software (primarily because typically, you don't have a choice what games you're picking up)

Completely unrelated, but a quick ebay check on completed listings reveals that the PS3 is selling for $700-$1100 (depending on which version -- $499/$599 MSRP). The Wii is selling for ~$500 (for about $250 MSRP).

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (0, Troll)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17140208)

What we do know is this: (...) Sony's PS3 is losing $200-$300US (we don't exactly how much they're losing, but most analysts say about that range)

So we *know* that Sony is losing this much because some bullshit analysts say so? Riiiiiight.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#17142990)

Actually given nintendos first party sales numbers, I think their biggest cash cow is the software, but they act more wisely that they want to earn on the hardware as well, they cannot run into financial problems that way. This is one of the reasons why they usually are more on the conservative side regarding the hardware used. They probably earned more on the cube and its games than Sony did on the PS2 regardless of being the last in the sheer numbers, but the cube situation wont repeat itself with the Wii as it seems, it is going strong in every region and Europe also will sell out.

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17146868)

Other than just taking Regi (?)'s word for it - where is the evidence that N is making money on the sales of the console?

Re:Well, at least Nintendo is happy ... (1)

MarkAyen (726688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17150016)

PS WTF's with the 0.98 attach rate for PS3 in Japan?! That's amazing to me. I know lots of people are flipping these on ebay, but even in the land of the rising sun, people aren't buying it to play games. That's bad news. Japan's a huge Sony supporter. If they lose Japan, they're in trouble.

(Relatively) cheap Blu-Ray player? The Japanese are traditionally a nation of early adopters, so it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Uh... convert to dollars? (2, Informative)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139478)

If you convert to dollars that is $2m for Nintendo, $40m loss for Sony, and $5m loss for Microsoft.

Console sales stats (2, Informative)

John Vai (150587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17139944)

Perhaps you'll want to visit the site http://nexgenwars.com/ [nexgenwars.com] to get a daily update on console sales.

Re:Console sales stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17143842)

Bwhahahaa, yeah right, I might as well trust my figues from goatse or some random analyst!

Here in the UK, Sony messed up (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17143158)

As with all EU countries, we have to wait until April 2007 for a PS3, missing the lucrative Christmas season. I don't suppose Sony sees this as a problem - it could easily sell its entire output of consoles elsewhere - but it means a lot of people will be picking up a 360 or Wii instead.

That's lost customers, and the chances of them coming back to Sony are slim. Of the Sony fanboys I've spoken to, most are incredibly blunt about how badly Sony treats EU countries with hardware releases; a year wait for the PSP, and a 5 month wait for the PS3. I won't be buying a PS3 personally because I think it's stale, overpriced and I don't have room for another console - my Wii should be arriving tomorrow.

So this Christmas - here at least - I'd expect the 360 and the Nintendo DS to clear up. Lack of Wii's in huge numbers and a damn excellent games roster make the 360 incredibly attractive. The DS also has the advantage of a much better games range than the PSP, and as both machines are rumoured to talk to their next gen consoles, it will be interesting to see whether the PSP/DS battle translates into PS3/Wii sales. I suspect it will.

However you cut it, Sony have a huge uphill battle here in the UK. I suspect they'll sell quite a lot of PS3's in April, but their ability to innovate has waned and I think they'll pay the price for it.

Find yours here here or here: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17145440)

There are many services that allow you to track online inventory, but it seems that even when they are there - it is only for a few minutes at best. I would kill for a PS3 right now - but dont want to pay ebay ransom either. Here are my two favs:

http://www.zootalor.com/ [zootalor.com] and http://ps3tracker.com/ [ps3tracker.com]

One runs local so you can get zero lag response - the other tracks inventory at the brick and morter.

Cool stuff.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>