[Console Wars] PS3 has finally surpassed Xbox 360 in total sales

I don't really follow sales/shipments that closely anymore (hard to obtain info, and as mentioned, doesn't really matter). The numbers IDC are using seem a bit off I believe (given what was known previously), but even if they are inaccurate, things are probably moving this direction.

Not a huge surprise. I figured this would happen given how poorly the 360 does outside of the US (though it has done much better in Europe this generation). If anything, I'm surprised it took this long (but that can be attributed to all the Sony/PS3 screw-ups, plus external factors).

Doesn't really mean much, though Sony can maybe count on some reliable (though shrinking) profits from the PS3 over the next few years.

Can't really obtain sold figures, and it isn't like shipped numbers wouldn't have the same trends (i.e., retailers aren't going to buy tons of consoles if they still have tons of them on store shelves). Shipped or sold, the trends are likely the same.

I'd prefer if we had sold-through numbers, but should just accept shipped numbers since they make things easier. Though they've now started making those more difficult to figure out by lumping shipments of product lines together.

Revealed in May 2006 (alongside FFXIII). Before the PS3's release. Maybe they can get it out before they quit making PS3s.

 

Owned 1 360 in my lifetime. I gave it to my brother and it went Red Rings in about 7 months. I think the gameplay on the 360 was a bit smoother.

Bought a used PS3 about 4 years ago on eBay and it is still going strong. I use it for media streaming, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, as well as playing mostly FIFA.

The Wii is still pretty useful if you are into retro gaming. I hacked mine in about 8 hours and now I have a whole library of NES and SNES Roms. Thousands of games that fit on a 2gb SD card. It's also pretty simple to do N64, PSX, and Gamecube.

 

Last I heard of Versus, the plan was to make a full scale city or, at least, the size of the Shibuya district, I think, versus the linear areas they had in XIII which were critically panned. That was the promise of the PS3 and that was what they were moving into since FFX. They realized this was unfeasible when they worked in XIII, hence, the very linear areas.

SE is very hesitant to make another FF. They're also still reeling from the disaster that is FF XIV. I think, that's why they've produced two sequels to XIII. As panned as XIII, it was a commercial success and has a fanbase.

 

In my opinion....

Hardware for Xbox 360 < Hardware for PS3

Quality of games for Xbox 360 > Quality of Games for PS3

Online Play for Xbox 360 > Only Play for PS3

I've had both consoles, and I just prefer the Xbox 360, but really it's just a matter of preference. No reason for all the competitiveness.

 

Fixed

 

I am an owner of both systems, I play XBOX 95% vs PS3 5% of my gaming time. XBOX Live Chat (Party) is the reasoning.

 

Agreed.

Part of this has to do with the disaster that is Crystal Tools. It was described as an engine, but sounded more like just some shared code. Partly why you saw them use other engines for games at times. Think that also factors into why they're pushing so hard to release so many FFXIII sequels/spin-offs (can reuse same assets/content that they spent so much time/resources on).

They seem to be doing better for next-gen development. Luminous Engine, even at an early state, seems much more advanced and usable (maybe due to some influence from the Eidos side of the company).

 

Numbers are skewed because everybody that bought an XBOX 3 years ago or longer has probably purchased 2 XBOX's (RRoD).

 

This is horse****... Microsoft fixes any RRoD Xbox regardless of how old it is. I have a launch day Xbox, it RRoD when it was 5+ years old. They replaced it with a 10 minute phone call.

People buy PS3's because of the Blu-ray player, and never use them as game consoles. If you compare software sales in the US, it doesn't even compare. There have been 457 million Xbox 360 games sold in the US which is 2 million more than Wii and 175 million more than the PS3. If you look at worldwide software sales numbers between the Xbox 360 and PS3 it equals out a little bit but the Xbox is still king with 742 million total games sold, with 645 total games sold for the PS3 (source).

 

Bluray is/was Doooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmed, bro.

 

Speaking of Eidos, the new Tomb Raider is gonna bomb. No way around it. It's really late, probably due to problems with executing the reboot, and nobody cares about it anymore, esp. with heavyweights like DmC and Metal Gear Rising on the horizon.

I've also seen Agni's Philosophy. I'm not that impressed. Apart from the lead char, the rest doesn't seem that well rendered. It's the same thing as FFX. All the polygons are on the lead chars.

 

Lol, deleted.

 

I agree, but during the first few years of Blu-ray a PS3 was the cheapest (and best) player on the market... oh, and it could play games too. Even now, if you are going to pay $100-150 bucks for a "nice" Blu-ray player, you might as well get a PS3. The lack of software sales for the PS3 in the US proves this point.

 

VGChartz are like 50% reported numbers, and 50% completely made-up numbers (and I might be giving them too much credit). I wouldn't use them to as a source in order to make some sort of conclusion.

That said, they show that in NA, the tie-ratio for PS3 is actually equal (well...higher by .01 actually) to the 360 (your software numbers aren't taking into consideration install base). Globally, 360 pulls away a bit. Numbers don't really sound right to me, though if you want to use them as source, that's what they are. I don't know what some more reliable numbers are, but PS3 is usually 1.5-2 games less I believe. Likely due to a variety of reasons, like Blu-ray...and being released a year later, generally not being the platform of choice for multiplatform gamers, possibility of PS gamers being more "casual", etc.

As for RRoD, Blu-ray, Netflix, etc. I'm sure they all factor into install bases, but we don't know how exactly. I say either accept the total figure (and all factors that might skew things), or reject them completely. Like using PPG (and only PPG) to figure out who the best scorer is.

 

Xbox 360 has been miles ahead of the PS3 in "attachment rate" since PS3 launch, regardless of source.

Since these numbers, Microsoft's attachment rate for the Xbox 360 has risen from 8.9% to 9.1%. The highest of any console (Source: Microsoft quarterly earnings).

 

You linked me to an article talking about attach rates, not tie-ratios. As noted in that very article, there's a difference (though I admit I believe I use them interchangeably at times...and apparently, so does Microsoft).

Tie-ratio = number of games / number of consoles (i.e., how many games are there for each console?)

Attach rate = percentage of userbase that purchases specific game/accessory/etc.

Your source actually indicates that PS3 owners purchase games (or at least the games included in the data) at a similar (or even higher) rate than 360. The difference in total software sales for these games is largely attributed to the larger install base for the 360 (30% of 10M is bigger than 30% of 5M).

These rates are essentially telling us the two userbases buy games at similar rates. If you want to assume there are a large portion of PS3s sitting out there with no games, then this would mean PS3 gamers buy substantially more games than 360 gamers. I tend to think the two types of gamers are likely more or less the same (what would differentiate them?), so it seems more reasonable to assume that there isn't a large number of unused (for games) PS3s out there (I'm sure there are a lot, but not significant enough to really matter in these types of discussions).

Of course, that also assumes there isn't anything skewing 360 sales too. Perhaps there are a large potion of 360 owners who bought multiple consoles, so the attach rate (and tie-ratio) of the 360 is skewed. But that's kind of my point. There are a lot of factors that could skew both numbers. With only this data, we can't really make any conclusions about which one is "really" ahead.

Now nitpicking...

MS is referring to the tie-ratio (they'd have to), not the attach rate. And FYI, that's not a percentage.

It is probably accurate, though now that you've actually got me bothered enough to look into it, the PS3 ratio isn't far off:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/16/ps3-sales-hit-70-million-worldwide

So a ratio of around 8.5, compared to 9.1 (or 9.2, which appears to be the most recent tie-ratio for the 360 listed in the link you provided).

 

I have both systems...for gaming, Xbox all the way. For blu ray, ps3 all the way.

I have friends that don't game at all, but they have a ps3 for watching movies. However, nobody buys an Xbox and plans on only using it for media.

 

^ True. I think it should fit needs.

I hardly play on my PS3. My daughters use it, mostly, for showing peeps photos and to play the Disney Blu Rays and some video games like Little Big Planet, Guitar Hero and Tennis. I play Gran Turismo series (not on xBox) and mostly Madden or FIFA, and try to watch movies in Blu-ray mostly. Those are my needs and I'm sticking to 'em.

Although I bought mine used as well and from a place you wouldn't think is a reputable source , it's STILL going stronger than my brother's xBox, which he bought at around the same time failed after three years and had to have the motherboard replace.

 

Let's break it down even simpler then. If PS3 just passed Xbox 360 with 77 million versus 76 million... yet software sales for the Xbox 360 are 175 million more in the US and 100 million more worldwide?

I stated in my original post that PS3 caught up quite a bit worldwide, but in the United States it isn't even close. Xbox 360 has horrible sales in SE Asia where Nintendo and Sony are not surprisingly king.

Console makers make their money on software, not hardware sales. We haven't even discussed Kinect vs. PS3 move sales either, while I don't enjoy either Microsoft has outpaced Move with Kinect, a lot of which has to do with their PC SDK for Kinect.

 

Missed this while I was responding other post.

I'd have to check it out again (only really remember the characters, which were very impressive IMO, so maybe you're right).

That said, depending on what they were focusing on, how much time it took, etc., it can still be impressive. I was more impressed by their engine demonstration (where they could manipulate the color, shape, texture, etc., of things like the old man's beard with ease). Probably still far off from tools like UE3 (and UE4), but shows they're putting more work into making some decent tools, which should at least put out decent looking visuals (impressive characters at least).