Andrew Yoon writes - Sony's PS3 slump continues. The high price of the PS3, coupled with a weak economy, has proven a one-two punch against Sony's current home console. PS3 sold 203k units in North America in the month of January. While this may sound good, a look at 2008's results shows a grim trend for Sony. While both the Wii and Xbox 360 have gained momentum from 2008 to 2009, PS3 has actually dropped down.
Things may change for Sony, especially with another year of fantastic exclusives planned for the system. Peter Dille, SVP of Marketing, ignores the January NPD results entirely and instead looks towards the future. "The PlayStation brand experienced a record year in sales in 2008 and we have every reason to believe our blockbuster line up combined with PS3's position as the best Blu-ray player and most sophisticated entertainment device out there, will continue to fuel increased marketshare and momentum into 2009. We've truly upped the ante this year with an unmatched software lineup ahead, kickstarting with the much anticipated and platform-moving title Killzone 2 later this month. We're the only company to offer three viable platforms today and will continue to deliver a seamless and comprehensive entertainment experience to our customers for many years to come."
It's true that PS3 does many things: it's a great games player, a sophisticated Blu-ray player, and has free access to the PlayStation Network. However, will consumers respond to that message? Only time will tell.
Plenty of unforgettable games have completely messed up their players throughout the years, all the way back from the PS1 days to the dark recesses of the modern internet.
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
It was worrisome to begin with.
It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.
I like the sound of that!! I will for sure never support these gaas games.
Sony must be shocked at gamer's reaction, making them cancel a few of these and hopefully go back to the good heavy hitters they had us used to..
now bring on that PSPro reveal and show us some SP 1st party awesomeness.
It's pretty ridiculous.
Imagine having a breadth of data at your disposal to see the statistically low success rate of these games, only to be laser focused on the exceptional case studies.
Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.
Helldivers 2 manages just fine…
Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.
Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.
Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.
Nameer from eXputer: "Some exceptions aside, I don't think the battle pass is a net positive for gaming with how they're implemented in most live service titles."
I like the way Helldivers 2 does battle passes. It allows you to make purchases on each level of the battle pass and gives you the option of choosing which item to unlock first. The more purchases you make using medals the further you progress. There is no timer and you can earn medals towards purchasing stuff via personal orders and Major orders.
I haven't played much live service games that have battle passes but I remember some games that have battle passes where you progress through it linearly using an exp system. What makes it really bad is that the battle pass will have like 50 or more levels with the cooler stuff being closer to the end. They also have an in-game shop that sells exp boosters so you can reach the end of the pass before it refreshes. Everyone ilse will have to grind their way through.
battle pass in fortnite is perfect; buy one and it buys the rest for every other season as it gives you more money than the first cost. so 8.50 and season ends with you getting 13.00, it pays for the next and you have some pocket change to save up for cash shop. All of which is optional
So if PS3 sales are "lackluster" where does that leave 360 sales considering the 360 cheap SKU is a whole $200.00 cheaper then the PS3 and even the good 60gb sku is only $299.99 and STILL cant manage to dominate the PS3 in sales, only outsold it by 100 thousand?! But but but i thought teh 360 had teh Halo and teh Halo wars and teh Gears and teh teh GTA IV dlc.
My point is this, if the 360 is so great and mighty how come its not killing the PS3 in terms of sales when its half the price and not only that but getting KILLED by the wii with the wii even having crappy games for the most part and even $50.00 more expensive!!!!
So back to my question, if PS3 sales are "lackluster" where does that leave 360 sales?!
"So back to my question, if PS3 sales are "lackluster" where does that leave 360 sales?!"
uhm, about 100,000 better than lackluster
JOY
translation we getting are a## kick by the competition giggity have no fear we still the console king giggity wii is not competition the ps3 is cheaper then the 360 harddrive $100 live $50.
The economy is crap. The ps3 is expensive. Yet it still sells.
Go play gears of slowdown, and be content with your own loud, dvd playing, hardware failing console and we will do just fine with our ps3's.
Is all good.
The Wii TROUNCES the 360, does that make it better?
are not taking into account some major factors from last year compare to this year.
Factor 1. Blu-ray won when WB switched to Blu before then end of 2007. This helped the sales of the PS3 in Jan 08.
Factor 2. The NA is in really bad shape and this puts the PS3 at a bigger disadvantage being the most expensive console on the market.
Yes the x360 saw an increase compare to Jan 08 but people must realise that the x360 is $100 cheaper now compare to Jan 08 so obviously it should sell more.
Look guys. What i am saying is that people are taking numbers at face value without factoring in factors that clearly affected these numbers. Say for example the PS3 saw a price drop in Dec 08. Are we to expect the PS3 to sell the same in Jan 09 as it was in Jan 08?. Hell no it should sell more but non of this happened.