Out of curiosity, why are people so worked up about all of the sales figures on the consoles... myself included?
I mean, I certainly have enough money where I could go out and get a PS3, and for those without the money, it should be irrelevant.
At this point, all three consoles have enough of a user base that none of them will be left in the cold:
Xbox with over 10 million.
Wii with over 6 million.
PS3 with 2.5-3 million.
So at this point, we've got a vibrant gaming ecosystem, with enough cool stuff for anyone that makes ANY choice.
Why is it then that we're "rubbernecking" the launches and the numbers? It's crazy!
cause thats what we do. we scrutinize every bit of data, whether its a screen shot or sales figures. we bitch and whine and debate and argue, and in the end we know it means nothing, but its a large part of our hobby. its not necessarily a bad thing, but its hardly anything to be overly proud of either.
Wraith260 on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Wait...even when it beats the previous big console's numbers in launch, it's not a good thing just because it has units left...? I am not following. What would be a good thing then?
We're talking about demand. Sony had plenty of consoles, some are left over.
Other companies didn't have enough to meet demand and some still don't. Sony has met demand in many ways.
I love how this is one of the only industries where this is a bad thing.
This company has more than enough units that everyone who wanted one could buy one, fucking fail!
Seriously, i understand the reasoning behind it, but when any other industry brings out a new product, having more than enough to meet demand and still breaking sales record is generally considered good planning. Here its considered a failure, and im not quite sure i can agree with that.
Having overstock is not good planning. It costs money to hold inventory that isn't moving.
cause thats what we do. we scrutinize every bit of data, whether its a screen shot or sales figures. we bitch and whine and debate and argue, and in the end we know it means nothing, but its a large part of our hobby. its not necessarily a bad thing, but its hardly anything to be overly proud of either.
win.
I know I'm being totally neurotic about it, too. Like the Rainman of gaming... yeah, def..def..definitely 165,000 PS3s. Yeah, gotta watch Blu Ray.
Out of curiosity, why are people so worked up about all of the sales figures on the consoles... myself included?
I mean, I certainly have enough money where I could go out and get a PS3, and for those without the money, it should be irrelevant.
At this point, all three consoles have enough of a user base that none of them will be left in the cold:
Xbox with over 10 million.
Wii with over 6 million.
PS3 with 2.5-3 million.
So at this point, we've got a vibrant gaming ecosystem, with enough cool stuff for anyone that makes ANY choice.
Why is it then that we're "rubbernecking" the launches and the numbers? It's crazy!
Hey! Knock it off! This sort of nonsense will NOT be tolerated!
Seriously though, I'm happy that all of the systems are now "doing well". It's a great time to be a gamer with incredible amounts of disposable income.
Wait...even when it beats the previous big console's numbers in launch, it's not a good thing just because it has units left...? I am not following. What would be a good thing then?
We're talking about demand. Sony had plenty of consoles, some are left over.
Other companies didn't have enough to meet demand and some still don't. Sony has met demand in many ways.
I love how this is one of the only industries where this is a bad thing.
This company has more than enough units that everyone who wanted one could buy one, fucking fail!
Seriously, i understand the reasoning behind it, but when any other industry brings out a new product, having more than enough to meet demand and still breaking sales record is generally considered good planning. Here its considered a failure, and im not quite sure i can agree with that.
Having overstock is not good planning. It costs money to hold inventory that isn't moving.
Our terms and turns on this type of product usually runs 60 - 90 days. That's an entire quarter. It doesn't generally start hitting your bottom line until that point.
Threepio on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Wait...even when it beats the previous big console's numbers in launch, it's not a good thing just because it has units left...? I am not following. What would be a good thing then?
We're talking about demand. Sony had plenty of consoles, some are left over.
Other companies didn't have enough to meet demand and some still don't. Sony has met demand in many ways.
I love how this is one of the only industries where this is a bad thing.
This company has more than enough units that everyone who wanted one could buy one, fucking fail!
Seriously, i understand the reasoning behind it, but when any other industry brings out a new product, having more than enough to meet demand and still breaking sales record is generally considered good planning. Here its considered a failure, and im not quite sure i can agree with that.
Having overstock is not good planning. It costs money to hold inventory that isn't moving.
Our terms and turns on this type of product usually runs 60 - 90 days. That's an entire quarter. It doesn't generally start hitting your bottom line until that point.
I'm talking about costs to Sony rather than retailers. Retailers have the option of dropping anything they don't want on their shelves, of course, so it shouldn't affect them... outside of opportunity costs of course.
I'm talking about costs to Sony rather than retailers. Retailers have the option of dropping anything they don't want on their shelves, of course, so it shouldn't affect them... outside of opportunity costs of course.
I'm not sure I'm following you here - Sony sold the units to retailers. The units are paid for - Sony has their money. Retailers now have roughly 90 days to sell this before they start taking a loss on them. Could you explain where the cost to Sony comes in?
I'm not trying to be rude - I just don't think I've caught what you're trying to say.
Threepio on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I'm talking about costs to Sony rather than retailers. Retailers have the option of dropping anything they don't want on their shelves, of course, so it shouldn't affect them... outside of opportunity costs of course.
I'm not sure I'm following you here - Sony sold the units to retailers. The units are paid for - Sony has their money. Retailers now have roughly 90 days to sell this before they start taking a loss on them. Could you explain where the cost to Sony comes in?
I'm not trying to be rude - I just don't think I've caught what you're trying to say.
The time spent stockpiling them, dude. They could have moved those units back when they had just 165,000 ready to go and that would have been perfect.
I'm talking about costs to Sony rather than retailers. Retailers have the option of dropping anything they don't want on their shelves, of course, so it shouldn't affect them... outside of opportunity costs of course.
I'm not sure I'm following you here - Sony sold the units to retailers. The units are paid for - Sony has their money. Retailers now have roughly 90 days to sell this before they start taking a loss on them. Could you explain where the cost to Sony comes in?
I'm not trying to be rude - I just don't think I've caught what you're trying to say.
the long it takes the retailers to sell the initial shipment the longer it'll be before the start ordering more. Sony wont stop producing new units so they'll be hoping for a continuous demand from retailers. they'll need to store those units until the retailers buy them.
like you said these costs wont hit home for quite a while if at all, but i'm sure it'll be on the minds of the SCEE execs when they realise that demand may not be as high as they'd hoped*.
*thats assuming demand has peaked, and that sales don't remain at a steady level over the coming weeks/months.
Oh, I see. Sorry, might be a bit slow this aft. It's Monday and I've got a lovely view from here
That's a bit of an intangible - you can't really put a price tag on it. Even so, it's in the past; unless they can avail themselves of a flux capacitor there's not much they can do. It is what it is.
The cost could, in turn be offset by eliminating the expensive cost of drop shipping these units to the store level over the course of the next few weeks - one of the most expensive elements of a launch like this. The move might actually be cost-saving for them in the long run. I couldn't give you a for sure either way without seeing the balance sheet, but it's a thought.
Edit: this was in relation to AZ's post. As for storing units they produce - send em to us. We can move em
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
It all falls back on that old mantra, "time is money." Really, any economist would tell you that every second a product that isn't selling takes up shelf space, money is being lost (because a product that is selling could be on that shelf).
But that is getting pretty anal.
My point is Sony's planning wasn't "good."
AbsoluteZero on
0
Options
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
I think they'd of been best off with 150K available at launch, and then let the other 100ish thousand seep in over the next month. It would have looked better on their records.
Of course, who could really make those kinds of predictions?
It all falls back on that old mantra, "time is money." Really, any economist would tell you that every second a product that isn't selling takes up shelf space, money is being lost (because a product that is selling could be on that shelf).
But that is getting pretty anal.
My point is Sony's planning wasn't "good."
From a retailer's perspective, I don't think we can refer to their planning as "bad".
As a retailer I would have just sold quite a few units (hopefully with a truckload of accessories - HDMI cables, controllers, warranties, power bars, HDTVs etc to ensure a healthy margin) and I would still have these systems to ensure that the sales aren't a flash in the pan. I also don't have to worry about constrained stock for a while. Honestly, as a retailer, I'd be happy if that were the situation; currently we're on the other side of the coin - still waiting for Wiis and PS3s that sell out every time we get them.
Hmm, good to see that the launch actually went quite well for them.
I agree that the planning could have been better but Sony must certainly be happy anyway. The retailers and consumers might be something of a mixed bag though. Still second largest hardware launch in terms of sales is nothing to scoff at.
It all falls back on that old mantra, "time is money." Really, any economist would tell you that every second a product that isn't selling takes up shelf space, money is being lost (because a product that is selling could be on that shelf).
But that is getting pretty anal.
My point is Sony's planning wasn't "good."
They sold 75% of their stock in one day. I think saying that it "isnt selling" might be an overstatement. I mean most of the stores that sell these kind of things have tons of stuff that doesnt sell through that fast (TV's, appliances, furniture, etc).
I mean, they might have been expecting to sell out, but i dont think theyre going to be overly disappointed in this.
It all falls back on that old mantra, "time is money." Really, any economist would tell you that every second a product that isn't selling takes up shelf space, money is being lost (because a product that is selling could be on that shelf).
But that is getting pretty anal.
My point is Sony's planning wasn't "good."
They sold 75% of their stock in one day. I think saying that it "isnt selling" might be an overstatement. I mean most of the stores that sell these kind of things have tons of stuff that doesnt sell through that fast (TV's, appliances, furniture, etc).
I mean, they might have been expecting to sell out, but i dont think theyre going to be overly disappointed in this.
They make a decent profit on the stuff that doesn't sell fast. They make barely anything on the PS3s and most of their money is through software sales for the system.
So the Europe launch went a bit better than it seemed.
Unfortunately, the PR there didn't go without a hitch.
In an interview with GamesIndustry, Sony UK's managing director Ray Maguire had something of a minor faux pas when asked why the PS3 is pricier in the UK (£425 or $833 US) than it is in the rest of Europe (€599 or $794 US), to which he replied:
"... you have a look at the economic and financial situation in each and every territory. That's where the differences start to vary massively. ... If you take what's considered to be the most expensive and the least expensive – consider the US with its massive land and cheap people."
Over the weekend, not one person came in asking about 360s despite the limited, compete with PS3 launch offer of Ghost REcon 2, Crackdown and Gears of War with a premium system for 304.99. Plenty of people however came in and asked about the PS3 and if it was as good as its meant to be. That's between the 70 or so we shifted. With cables, extra controllers, etc.
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
The same can be said for notebook computers, but retailers continue to stock them. The majority of our notebooks are pushed out at less than 5% GM, some of them even migrating into negative GM territory depending on the promotion.
Why do we sell them? A few reasons: Accessories, Software and Good Will.
We usually sell accessories and software (at this point PS3 games, DVDs and Blu-ray can all be considered software for the system) and Good Will isn't something you can buy. You want your customer to associate you with the purchase of a piece of high end electronics and return to you in the future.
*shrug* It's retail. It's a growing business. I think we'll (as an industry) be okay.
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
Those are the only games? That is rather odd.
I wonder what the attachment rate is too.
Rehab on
NNID: Rehab0
0
Options
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
Those are the only games? That is rather odd.
I wonder what the attachment rate is too.
That number was supposed to be including the online titles for download.
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
Those are the only games? That is rather odd.
I wonder what the attachment rate is too.
Sorry, I forgot Motorstorm (That looks beautiful in HD btw, i was stunned like I was when I first played DMC on PS2). Looks shitty to play but beautiful. Ridge Racer 7 and...Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Blazing Angels...Def Jam Icon. Genji.
I think thats all of them. Fucking pathetic. I'm sure it was meant to be 30. Is that not what was said?
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
Those are the only games? That is rather odd.
I wonder what the attachment rate is too.
"Chart-Track has noted on its website that while the PS3 registered almost 3 times more units than PS2, its software to hardware attachment rate was quite similar—1.65 compared to PS2's 1.67. Insomniac's Resistance: Fall of Man claimed the top spot on the week's all format list, which Chart-Track points out is the first time a Sony title has done so since Shadow of the Colossus about a year ago.
MotorStorm wasn't far behind Resistance in the number two spot. In total, there were 6 new PS3 games in the top 10 and 13 PS3 games in the top 40, 5 of which were exclusive to the PS3 platform. "
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
Those are the only games? That is rather odd.
I wonder what the attachment rate is too.
Sorry, I forgot Motorstorm (That looks beautiful in HD btw, i was stunned like I was when I first played DMC on PS2). Looks shitty to play but beautiful. Ridge Racer 7 and...Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Blazing Angels...Def Jam Icon. Genji.
I think thats all of them. Fucking pathetic. I'm sure it was meant to be 30. Is that not what was said?
I have no idea how many games they were supposed to launch with but at least they have over 10 and are including the ones that really count like Virtual Fighter, Resistance, and Motorstorm. Also as far as Motorstorm goes, I played a demo that they had at Target and yeah, the game does look incredible. It plays kind of like Hydro Thunder to me with the emphasis on boosting and really fun jumps. I thought the game was really enjoyable but it didn't feel like anything really new. The lack of rumble in this game kind of hurts too. Slamming into the side of a canyon looked cool as hell but it was weird not having any feedback.
Am I the only one that doesn't want three awesome consoles on the market? It means I have to spend more on getting each console if I want to play all the great games of this generation and means I'll have an ugly pile of consoles sitting infront of my TV. It's a terrible time to be a gamer!
I exagerate, of course, but in a way it was nice when I was a blinkered PS1 owner.
Am I the only one that doesn't want three awesome consoles on the market? It means I have to spend more on getting each console if I want to play all the great games of this generation and means I'll have an ugly pile of consoles sitting infront of my TV. It's a terrible time to be a gamer!
I exagerate, of course, but in a way it was nice when I was a blinkered PS1 owner.
Am I the only one that doesn't want three awesome consoles on the market? It means I have to spend more on getting each console if I want to play all the great games of this generation and means I'll have an ugly pile of consoles sitting infront of my TV. It's a terrible time to be a gamer!
I exagerate, of course, but in a way it was nice when I was a blinkered PS1 owner.
Am I the only one that finds the expectation to play every great game in each generation a tad absurd? "Great" is very subjective and every time I go to the store there are still games from last gen I want to try or heard good things about. Hell there are plenty of games from the PS1/N64 and SNES/Genesis eras that could be considered "great" that I haven't gotten around to.
It's just something that I live with knowing that I will never play every "great" game.... Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough :?
So the Europe launch went a bit better than it seemed.
Unfortunately, the PR there didn't go without a hitch.
In an interview with GamesIndustry, Sony UK's managing director Ray Maguire had something of a minor faux pas when asked why the PS3 is pricier in the UK (£425 or $833 US) than it is in the rest of Europe (€599 or $794 US), to which he replied:
"... you have a look at the economic and financial situation in each and every territory. That's where the differences start to vary massively. ... If you take what's considered to be the most expensive and the least expensive – consider the US with its massive land and cheap people."
That sounds like a quote that has been taken completely out of context. Whether he's saying that labour is cheaper in the US or that that the cost of living is a lot less, I don't know.
Many people are saying we're now joining the next-generation console era, but I believe we've stepped over the current next-gen to create the real next-generation.
Right there Ray... just keep telling that to yourself so you can sleep at night. :P
In or out of context, I have a hard time saying I disagree with it. That's the cynical side of me, though. I live in Rome, Georgia and come from a land down under where women glow and men plunder. God I love Colin Hay.
But yeah, if it's in context, it's a stupid-shit thing to say.
Posts
cause thats what we do. we scrutinize every bit of data, whether its a screen shot or sales figures. we bitch and whine and debate and argue, and in the end we know it means nothing, but its a large part of our hobby. its not necessarily a bad thing, but its hardly anything to be overly proud of either.
Having overstock is not good planning. It costs money to hold inventory that isn't moving.
win.
I know I'm being totally neurotic about it, too. Like the Rainman of gaming... yeah, def..def..definitely 165,000 PS3s. Yeah, gotta watch Blu Ray.
fix'd
Our terms and turns on this type of product usually runs 60 - 90 days. That's an entire quarter. It doesn't generally start hitting your bottom line until that point.
I'm talking about costs to Sony rather than retailers. Retailers have the option of dropping anything they don't want on their shelves, of course, so it shouldn't affect them... outside of opportunity costs of course.
I'm not sure I'm following you here - Sony sold the units to retailers. The units are paid for - Sony has their money. Retailers now have roughly 90 days to sell this before they start taking a loss on them. Could you explain where the cost to Sony comes in?
I'm not trying to be rude - I just don't think I've caught what you're trying to say.
The time spent stockpiling them, dude. They could have moved those units back when they had just 165,000 ready to go and that would have been perfect.
the long it takes the retailers to sell the initial shipment the longer it'll be before the start ordering more. Sony wont stop producing new units so they'll be hoping for a continuous demand from retailers. they'll need to store those units until the retailers buy them.
like you said these costs wont hit home for quite a while if at all, but i'm sure it'll be on the minds of the SCEE execs when they realise that demand may not be as high as they'd hoped*.
*thats assuming demand has peaked, and that sales don't remain at a steady level over the coming weeks/months.
That's a bit of an intangible - you can't really put a price tag on it. Even so, it's in the past; unless they can avail themselves of a flux capacitor there's not much they can do. It is what it is.
The cost could, in turn be offset by eliminating the expensive cost of drop shipping these units to the store level over the course of the next few weeks - one of the most expensive elements of a launch like this. The move might actually be cost-saving for them in the long run. I couldn't give you a for sure either way without seeing the balance sheet, but it's a thought.
Edit: this was in relation to AZ's post. As for storing units they produce - send em to us. We can move em
But that is getting pretty anal.
My point is Sony's planning wasn't "good."
Of course, who could really make those kinds of predictions?
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
I'm really interested in them.
From a retailer's perspective, I don't think we can refer to their planning as "bad".
As a retailer I would have just sold quite a few units (hopefully with a truckload of accessories - HDMI cables, controllers, warranties, power bars, HDTVs etc to ensure a healthy margin) and I would still have these systems to ensure that the sales aren't a flash in the pan. I also don't have to worry about constrained stock for a while. Honestly, as a retailer, I'd be happy if that were the situation; currently we're on the other side of the coin - still waiting for Wiis and PS3s that sell out every time we get them.
*sigh* such is life.
I agree that the planning could have been better but Sony must certainly be happy anyway. The retailers and consumers might be something of a mixed bag though. Still second largest hardware launch in terms of sales is nothing to scoff at.
They sold 75% of their stock in one day. I think saying that it "isnt selling" might be an overstatement. I mean most of the stores that sell these kind of things have tons of stuff that doesnt sell through that fast (TV's, appliances, furniture, etc).
I mean, they might have been expecting to sell out, but i dont think theyre going to be overly disappointed in this.
Check out my band, click the banner.
They make a decent profit on the stuff that doesn't sell fast. They make barely anything on the PS3s and most of their money is through software sales for the system.
Unfortunately, the PR there didn't go without a hitch.
Ack.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/26/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-xxxii-sony-uk-boss-calls-us-citizens-ch/
What is really killing it however is the abysmal launch line up. I thought there were meant to be 30 games. Why the hell is there only Virtua Tennis, Virtua Fighter, Resistance, NFS:Carbon, Fight Night 3 and Tony Hawk?
Why do we sell them? A few reasons: Accessories, Software and Good Will.
We usually sell accessories and software (at this point PS3 games, DVDs and Blu-ray can all be considered software for the system) and Good Will isn't something you can buy. You want your customer to associate you with the purchase of a piece of high end electronics and return to you in the future.
*shrug* It's retail. It's a growing business. I think we'll (as an industry) be okay.
Those are the only games? That is rather odd.
I wonder what the attachment rate is too.
That number was supposed to be including the online titles for download.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Sorry, I forgot Motorstorm (That looks beautiful in HD btw, i was stunned like I was when I first played DMC on PS2). Looks shitty to play but beautiful. Ridge Racer 7 and...Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Blazing Angels...Def Jam Icon. Genji.
I think thats all of them. Fucking pathetic. I'm sure it was meant to be 30. Is that not what was said?
"Chart-Track has noted on its website that while the PS3 registered almost 3 times more units than PS2, its software to hardware attachment rate was quite similar—1.65 compared to PS2's 1.67. Insomniac's Resistance: Fall of Man claimed the top spot on the week's all format list, which Chart-Track points out is the first time a Sony title has done so since Shadow of the Colossus about a year ago.
MotorStorm wasn't far behind Resistance in the number two spot. In total, there were 6 new PS3 games in the top 10 and 13 PS3 games in the top 40, 5 of which were exclusive to the PS3 platform. "
Hmm...its apparently been pushed back to the 27th of April for no reason.
They may have found a way for the Shivering Isles to be put in.
Why wouldn't they just sell it for full price and then sell Shivering Isles for extra cash?
I have no idea how many games they were supposed to launch with but at least they have over 10 and are including the ones that really count like Virtual Fighter, Resistance, and Motorstorm. Also as far as Motorstorm goes, I played a demo that they had at Target and yeah, the game does look incredible. It plays kind of like Hydro Thunder to me with the emphasis on boosting and really fun jumps. I thought the game was really enjoyable but it didn't feel like anything really new. The lack of rumble in this game kind of hurts too. Slamming into the side of a canyon looked cool as hell but it was weird not having any feedback.
Edit: Ah thanks for the numbers titmouse.
No idea.
His mission? Make it happen, Bob. Make it happen.
I exagerate, of course, but in a way it was nice when I was a blinkered PS1 owner.
SoogaGames Blog
OH my god, there is another!
Edit:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=1194187#post1194187
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Am I the only one that finds the expectation to play every great game in each generation a tad absurd? "Great" is very subjective and every time I go to the store there are still games from last gen I want to try or heard good things about. Hell there are plenty of games from the PS1/N64 and SNES/Genesis eras that could be considered "great" that I haven't gotten around to.
It's just something that I live with knowing that I will never play every "great" game.... Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough :?
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
That sounds like a quote that has been taken completely out of context. Whether he's saying that labour is cheaper in the US or that that the cost of living is a lot less, I don't know.
But yeah, that has to be out of context.
That's the same interview where he said this
Right there Ray... just keep telling that to yourself so you can sleep at night. :P
But yeah, if it's in context, it's a stupid-shit thing to say.