StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Can you get any suckier?

According to data from NPD, based on the first ten months of availability, the troubled PlayStation 3 sold 22% less than the Nintendo GameCube for the same period, reports GamePro web-site. In the first ten months of availability about 2.12 million Nintendo GameCube were bought by end-users, whereas only 1.742 million Nintendo PlayStation 3 gaming machines were sold in from November ’06 to September ’07.

Thread title modified for clarity-Bean

Amusing typo there. Then again, Sony might just have done bad enough to get bought out. XP

Edit: Heh, should flesh this out: It's not that surprising. Nintendo still had a fair amount of fan momentum after the N64, and a few killer apps like Super Smash Brothers and Metroid Prime out not terribly long after the system went out. On top of a relatively cheap cost

PS3 is still pricey, and most of it's high profile titles are still yet to finalize.

I find the wording dubious. First ten months of availability? What are they comparing? The first ten months of the gamecube being relased, compared to the first ten months of the PS3? That seems most likely, though all are free to shoot me for wrongitude, but in that light... whoop-de-do? The gamecube was the Wii of the Xbox/PS2 wars, in terms of sales and pricing, wasn't it? It feels like an "apples sold more than oranges in the same time period, six years appart, and under varying market influences!"

Of course, if they actually mean honest to goodness gamecube sales during the PS3 launch.. Whoop-de-do? "Apples sold more than oranges, at eight times the availability and one eigth the price!"

I find it somewhat amusing. Essentially it comes down to PS3 is akin to the GC in that sales sucked, and sucked hard.

And the Gamecube was the Wii only because they would Nintendo products, little else.

I await either the fanboys to claim "Give it time, the PS2 sales sucked too!!!" as well as "The killer applications are coming!!!!!".

According to the sales charts on the (admittedly not always correct) VGChartz, Pretty much every console for the last two generations has shown roughly the same growth for it's first year (except the Wii, which is way above the curve). It's what happens after that that matters.

Also, we're just about to enter the christmas sales spike. Who can benefit most from that is going to be important in determining public perception of the current console generation. Microsoft were the biggest beneficiaries last year, because their unit had been out for a year, had high availability and had Gears of War as a strong sales driver. This year they have Halo 3. Nintendo have Mario Galaxy and the must have nature of the Wii. Sony have, well, not a lot really. Their biggest exclusive this year, UT3, just got pushed back to next year.

The key this christmas I think is whether Nintendo can make enough Wiis for everyone who wants to buy one. If they don't, Microsoft may well be the beneficiaries, because they have the low price point on the Core system, and the strong game library. If Nintendo can even mostly meet demand for the Wii this christmas, they'll never be caught again.

I find it somewhat amusing. Essentially it comes down to PS3 is akin to the GC in that sales sucked, and sucked hard.

[Sarcasm]I thought the Gamecube was supposed to be a successful system, because it made a profit for Nintendo[/sarcasm] - at least that's what I was told when I called the GC a failure for its loss of market share and few games

From a fiscal standpoint, if most of the profit for a system didn't actually come from first party titles, that would be a viable statement.

Without the numbers (or really the will to look them up.) on how much Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony raked in over the last generation via both console sales and software sales... Well, the whole point would still be pretty moot.

Most of the fun I had on Sony consoles came from third party titles, and most of the fun I have with Nintendo consoles came from first or second party developers. (Which kinda makes sense, they alienated the majority of third parties while they were the only game in town.)

Vympel wrote:

I find it somewhat amusing. Essentially it comes down to PS3 is akin to the GC in that sales sucked, and sucked hard.

[Sarcasm]I thought the Gamecube was supposed to be a successful system, because it made a profit for Nintendo[/sarcasm] - at least that's what I was told when I called the GC a failure for its loss of market share and few games

Say what you will, but four-player Smash Bros. matches are still in high demand at the SF/anime club on my campus. It actually competes with 4-on-4 Halo on a somewhat even footing for players.

I've modified the thread title because it was misleading. The way it read I came into this thread thinking the Gamecube RIGHT NOW was outselling the PS3, which would be a far sorrier state of affairs than the PS3 is under preforming compared to the Gamecube.

Vympel wrote:

I find it somewhat amusing. Essentially it comes down to PS3 is akin to the GC in that sales sucked, and sucked hard.

[Sarcasm]I thought the Gamecube was supposed to be a successful system, because it made a profit for Nintendo[/sarcasm] - at least that's what I was told when I called the GC a failure for its loss of market share and few games

Look at it this way:

When the Gamecube came out, Nintendo was on the outs since pretty much the N64.

What's notable about the PS3's situation is that Sony came out of the gate from being in the #1 position from the last generation.

One was a downward slide, the other is hitting a concrete wall.

I wonder if the cut-price PS3 coming out at the end of the month will change this matter. Maybe not. I would consider it rather than get a new gaming dedicated PC, but I don't see ANY games on the PS3 I even care for that aren't months off still, and even then that's only MGS4 and FFXIII.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I wonder if the cut-price PS3 coming out at the end of the month will change this matter. Maybe not. I would consider it rather than get a new gaming dedicated PC, but I don't see ANY games on the PS3 I even care for that aren't months off still, and even then that's only MGS4 and FFXIII.

And they cut backwards compatability with the lower-price model. You can't even play PS2 games on it, anymore.

That's just stupid. I'd consider getting a PS3 purely for the backwards compatibility, but I'm not paying premium prices for it. At this rate, I'm well on the way to getting either an XBox 360 so I can play Mass Effect etc, or a Wii to play my GC games now that my GC is broken.

Master of Ossus wrote: And they cut backwards compatability with the lower-price model. You can't even play PS2 games on it, anymore.

At a guess, the 40GB model will use the same software derived backwards compatibility as the existing EU models (and 80GB US model). that is, after all, delivered by firmware updates that are, as far as I know, common across the whole platform.

Though much to my chagrin it won't play Ratchet & Clank acceptably, because ever since I got a free PS3 I've wanted to play that in HD, but the frame rate goes and cries in a corner every time anything interesting happens.

From what I've heard from PS3 users, the PS3 likes to delete PS2 save data at random, so it's not like even the backwards-compatible models are worth much.

Vendetta wrote:At a guess, the 40GB model will use the same software derived backwards compatibility as the existing EU models (and 80GB US model). that is, after all, delivered by firmware updates that are, as far as I know, common across the whole platform.

That's not what Sony's saying.

SCEE wrote:The new model is no longer backwards compatible with PlayStation®2 titles, reflecting both the reduced emphasis placed on this feature amongst later purchasers of PS3, as well as the availability of a more extensive line-up of PS3 specific titles (a total of 65 titles across all genres by Christmas).

So in other words, "Our lineup of new games is so great, you won't even need your old games anymore!"

I would state at that juncture that all I have used my PS3 for is PS2 games, because the PS3 software lineup is comprised of games I either already have on the Xbox or are simply not worth the asking price.

Vendetta wrote:I would state at that juncture that all I have used my PS3 for is PS2 games, because the PS3 software lineup is comprised of games I either already have on the Xbox or are simply not worth the asking price.

This begs the question: Then why did you spend 400 pounds on it?

I was under the impression that GC failed because of a lack of first party games rather than low sales.

Surely you meant third? First party games are Nintendo's specialty. Hell, first party games were usually the only ones worth buying for the Cube.

Darth Yoshi wrote:Surely you meant third? First party games are Nintendo's specialty. Hell, first party games were usually the only ones worth buying for the Cube.

Nintendo put out maybe 6 first party GC games. Third party titles just didn't sell because the platform sucked ass, but IIRC the console itself sold pretty well.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Vendetta wrote:I would state at that juncture that all I have used my PS3 for is PS2 games, because the PS3 software lineup is comprised of games I either already have on the Xbox or are simply not worth the asking price.

This begs the question: Then why did you spend 400 pounds on it?

I didn't. I won it in a prize draw at work. I wouldn't have spent money on it.

Vendetta wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:

Vendetta wrote:I would state at that juncture that all I have used my PS3 for is PS2 games, because the PS3 software lineup is comprised of games I either already have on the Xbox or are simply not worth the asking price.

This begs the question: Then why did you spend 400 pounds on it?

I didn't. I won it in a prize draw at work. I wouldn't have spent money on it.

Wow, that's kind of a weird booby prize.

As to "reduced demand" for backwards compatibility - isn't this the same Sony that claimed you couldn't get rumble and motion sensor in one controller, and furthermore, people didn't WANT rumble since it was "last generation tech"?

Molyneux wrote:

Vendetta wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote: This begs the question: Then why did you spend 400 pounds on it?

I didn't. I won it in a prize draw at work. I wouldn't have spent money on it.

Wow, that's kind of a weird booby prize.

As to "reduced demand" for backwards compatibility - isn't this the same Sony that claimed you couldn't get rumble and motion sensor in one controller, and furthermore, people didn't WANT rumble since it was "last generation tech"?

Just making sure you know that both MS and Sony ripped off the rumble option from the people who patented it, and instead of just paying the company for it, Microsoft gave it a shit load of cash and bought it out, the real reason the new PS3 controller doesn't have rumble is because they didn't want to have to pay Microsoft to use it.