Another thing regarding US Sales is that last gen PS360 sold ~75 million units, that's MORE than one console per household, there is no room for growth at all from the hardware side, the growth in that market will come exclusively from the software side, if you're looking for hardware growth, USA is the wrong market, households don't usually have multiple consoles.
That's why you're seeing hardware growth on PS4 in other markets, those markets didn't mature enough to get to a point where every household on average has one console.
Another thing regarding US Sales is that last gen PS360 sold ~75 million units, that's MORE than one console per household, there is no room for growth at all from the hardware side, thr growth in that market will come exclusively from the software side, if you're looking for hardware growth, USA is the wrong market, households don't usually have multiple consoles.
That's why you're seeing hardware growth on PS4 in other markets, those markets didn't mature enough to get to a point where every household on average has one console.
By the end of April, where is the PS4 selling an additional 2.2-2.8m from the beginning of March? This is a case of you overestimating the PS4 just because "Xbox ROTW must be bad".
Over 20.2 mil. as of March 1st. I'm pretty sure sold-trough is over 22 mil. 2 and a half months later. As i said 22.5-23 TOP.
I edited Xbone numbers in previous post, but here anyway : US is 7 mil. sold trough, UK is around 1.6 mil sold-trough, Germany is around 400k, France is over 400k, rest of the world... 2.0 mil. maybe sold-trough.
If the average household is 4 people, & the US population is 300 million, then on average, more than one console was sold per household, of course not every household had a console, but that's just an average.
I know you know this already, but he is saying the Wii doesn't count as a console. So he is only comparing Sony and MS systems to each other to show there is growth in the market. You know, where real games are.
I hope these predictions are true assuming that PC gaming and Steam Machines will pick up the slack. The reduced relevance of traditional console platforms would be great news for the future of gaming. However, if that part of the audience is lost to mobile then I see dark days ahead for core gaming.
It's not, in my opinion, but this sort of attitude is not new.
Have you seen people decry the growth of mobile platforms? It's the same sort of logic: "I don't like this thing, so I am glad when that thing does poorly."
I know you know this already, but he is saying the Wii doesn't count as a console. So he is only comparing Sony and MS systems to each other to show there is growth in the market. You know, where real games are.
Yeah the Wii wasn't a gaming console, hosting a series of video games that sold a lot of games. It was actually a box of Jacks and marbles and pogs, where the old fogeys used the remote to gamble on horses.
It's not, in my opinion, but this sort of attitude is not new.
Have you seen people decry the growth of mobile platforms? It's the same sort of logic: "I don't like this thing, so I am glad when that thing does poorly."
I think Alexandros is actually hoping for a more standardized platform than walled gardens. Sort of like what DVD players and Blu Ray players are. Multiple manufacturers providing a standard/varying spec/cost player.
It's arguable that consoles are really defined by their exclusion in terms of an ecosystem and breaking down that wall creates a more accessible gaming space.
I mostly agree, but would add further thoughts: this is no different than saying "With the PS1, Sony was able to draw in fans of 'cinematic' style games like no one before, thanks to games like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII."
Wii is a poor example given LTD difference of those games and the top selling games, but I agree they are "a" reason, but the impact of those games, looking at the best selling list (made by the same guy as this thread) That reason isn't reallyt hat big.
I think Cinematic was much more of a player on the PS2.
If it were the beginning, then the Xbox One would be super high. The PS4 was at 20.2m at the beginning of March, and had sold 1.7m in January and February combined. If PS4 sold 1 million during March, that leaves the Xbox One at almost 13 million sold through.
What's the problem of Xbox One be at 13 million? We don't know MS oficial number to have a better idea. People are assuming lower numbers without data to prove.
Unless IDG said end of april, a report until end of Q1 2015 makes much more sense.
Wii is a poor example given LTD difference of those games and the top selling games, but I agree they are "a" reason, but the impact of those games, looking at the best selling list (made by the same guy as this thread) That reason isn't reallyt hat big.
I think Cinematic was much more of a player on the PS2.
Mario Kart sold 20M+ on Wii. Even if we set the bar incredibly high (e.g. anything selling below 10M doesn't count), that's a top selling game. Mario Galaxy 1 and Smash were very close (last I saw, in the 8M-9M range).
What's the problem of Xbox One be at 13 million? We don't know MS oficial number to have a better idea. People are assuming lower numbers without data to prove.
Unless IDG said end of april, a report until end of Q1 2015 makes much more sense.
Mario Kart sold 20M+ on Wii. Even if we set the bar incredibly high (e.g. anything selling below 10M doesn't count), that's a top selling game. Mario Galaxy 1 and Smash were very close (last I saw, in the 8M-9M range).
Let me rephrase, comparing tot he PS1 is bad, because you had tons of games non-cinematic moving platforms. So while a factor, it wasn't a big player so youc an't throw a lot of the sales of the PS1 on those titles.
However, you can do that for the Wii, which using wiki, top 7 best selling games are all casual and all significantly ahead of everything else. These games sold the system. Sure, certain games did move consoles for a select minority, but the Wii is not the console to compare to the PS1, where one can look at sales numbers and come to the conclusion that a large number of consoles sold were based on the top few games. This didn't happen with the PS1, didn't even happen with the PS2, GTA SA is an outlier.
Okay, this is a very loose definition of "core" and "casual" then.
Let me rephrase, comparing tot he PS1 is bad, because you had tons of games non-cinematic moving platforms. So while a factor, it wasn't a big player so youc an't throw a lot of the sales of the PS1 on those titles.
i guess it was kind of a given... Wii was purely an anomaly. hell, I'd even say that the late-gen XB360 sales gained from Kinect were, as well. Perhaps PS3-as-a-blu-ray-player sales, too. if we take those sales away from last gen, I wonder how close we are to current gen figures. hell, throw in "even cheap laptop PCs are 'good enough' to play LoL, Minecraft, and WoW", along with hand-me-down phones, (which don't affect only the handheld market) and we're somewhere in between PS1 gen and PS2 gen sales, more towards the latter. the one thing in XBO/PS4's favor is that the price floor should be lower than PS3/XB360, which never got particularly cheap.
People can be significant off. We don't have enough data, estimates are pure guesses, people look at NPD and a few Europe countries and try to imagine how much Xbox One sell worldwide.
It's not, in my opinion, but this sort of attitude is not new.
Have you seen people decry the growth of mobile platforms? It's the same sort of logic: "I don't like this thing, so I am glad when that thing does poorly."
Yes, the last thread of this sort I resolved to simply ignore it.
On-topic, that's a fairly conservative estimate for total sales. I think we'll get a better idea for appetite once the first price drop hits for the PS4. 2 years in and a 399 price point means the tide is starting to ebb.
Gaming on a television is bad for meeting their needs. The new fad is people attempting to multitask. Gaming or reading websites on their iPad while the TV is going. Nintendo tried to capitalize on that but those same multitasking gamers are happier with touch-control gaming. And Nintendo can't capitalize on that with a $350 console that is branded and advertised like a Wii peripheral and has an invisible tether of distance for usability.
Multiuse device is the new fad. A handheld device that can stream netflix, surf the web, and play bite-sized games all without a television or an invisible tether.
It also needs to be a general computing device (or a reasonable facsimile) that can run all kinds of programs, even custom ones from my work. Hey, that kind of sounds like my phone.
* * *
It's just a fact that specialized devices cannot compete with multiuse devices if the multiuse device offers a similar or 'good enough' experience.
Do people blame camera makers for losing their audience? Print newspapers for losing theirs? Arcade owners for losing theirs?
I do think the projections here are a little off. They seem to be assuming that the console sales are going to be front-loaded, but honestly that assumption contradicts a consistent trend we see in every console generation. Specifically, in every console generation sales tend to increase as the consoles ages, up until the last year or two of their lifecycle. The reason for this is fairly simple. Prices go down, the libraries improve, and people who were less eager to jump into the new generation finally decide to take the plunge.
Don't get me wrong, I do think this generation is going to end up selling considerably fewer machines than what was sold in the previous generation. However a large portion of that is going to be from the failure of the Wii U. The Wii sold 100 million units, that's going to be kinda hard for Microsoft and Sony to make up for.
Also the PS360 generation will probably end up being a few years longer than this current generation, which will further distort numbers.
PS: Mobile Gaming and Console/PC gaming really aren't the same markets, though there is some overlap. The design philosophies between these platforms are so radically different that outside very casual gamers the markets might as well be unrelated. As an anecdotal example, my mother hasn't played a console game since Duck Hunt on the NES but even she has a few mobile games on her phone. This isn't necessarily representative of the entire market mind you, but it does demonstrate that a mobile game consumer isn't necessarily a defunct console gamer.
This isn't to say that mobile isn't cannibalizing part of the PC/Console gaming market. However I'd argue that what it's cannibalizing is more the fringes of the PC/Console market, rather than the core.
Wow, alot has happened since I was last signed in. So my assumption was correct that it was as of April 30th, 2015. Thanks again Queso for the info. Chanced of Sony moving through the existing inventory seems likely. March was a huge month for them. PS4 being at 22M as of April 30th wouldn't surprise me. Xbox One minimum is around 11.8 and 12.2M.
I think Alexandros is actually hoping for a more standardized platform than walled gardens. Sort of like what DVD players and Blu Ray players are. Multiple manufacturers providing a standard/varying spec/cost player.
What's the problem of Xbox One be at 13 million? We don't know MS oficial number to have a better idea. People are assuming lower numbers without data to prove.
Unless IDG said end of april, a report until end of Q1 2015 makes much more sense.
Right now, going off of historical data (360 success/XboxOne launch), USA and UK make up nearly 68 % of Xbox One's install base. As we move further east, Xbox One performs significantly worse. But it has sold enough to ensure support throughout this gen's lifecycle. The thing is, it's going to be a hard push for 3rd party exclusives. Convincing a software company to ignore (temporarily) a platform with a larger install base will be a hard sale for them.
Also Microsoft's lineup this holiday looks absolutely beast. I imagine that Gears Remaster release is imminent following the E3 announcement coming up.
Look, I don't mean to sound harsh, but keep that opinion out of a console sales thread. You're not only derailing the thread, you're making yourself look like some PC elitist.
If the average household is 4 people, & the US population is 300 million, then on average, more than one console was sold per household, of course not every household had a console, but that's just an average.
Look, I don't mean to sound harsh, but keep that opinion out of a console sales thread. You're not only derailing the thread, you're making yourself look like some PC elitist.
I mean, we're all asking what happened to the Console market from last gen... some number of them may have moved on to MOBAs and TF2s and World of Tanks and all that other crazy PC stuff.
And I can see the argument for having an open platform. Would be better for just about everyone.
However, PCs are still too complicated to put under the TV and be able to fire it up and have everything just work with the ease and simplicity of a Console.
I see where he's coming from, just don't see a close timetable for that to change. Maybe in a decade. Who knows.
I mean, we're all asking what happened to the Console market from last gen... some number of them may have moved on to MOBAs and TF2s and World of Tanks and all that other crazy PC stuff.
And I can see the argument for having an open platform. Would be better for just about everyone.
However, PCs are still too complicated to put under the TV and be able to fire it up and have everything just work with the ease and simplicity of a Console.
I see where he's coming from, just don't see a close timetable for that to change. Maybe in a decade. Who knows.
The problem is his post is written in a way that fuels platform wars. He is basically saying he wants consoles to die. Derailing aside, if you know alexandros and his post history, you know he is generally negative towards consoles.
I mean, we're all asking what happened to the Console market from last gen... some number of them may have moved on to MOBAs and TF2s and World of Tanks and all that other crazy PC stuff.
And I can see the argument for having an open platform. Would be better for just about everyone.
However, PCs are still too complicated to put under the TV and be able to fire it up and have everything just work with the ease and simplicity of a Console.
I see where he's coming from, just don't see a close timetable for that to change. Maybe in a decade. Who knows.
Last gen was over inflated with grandma and soccer mom casual market because of the Wii, and it continued with the Kinect. That market moves from one fad to another, I bet Sony wants a piece of that market with morpheus. Right now we're seeing the console market readjust.
The problem is his post is written in a way that fuels platform wars. He is basically saying he wants consoles to die. Derailing aside, if you know alexandros and his post history, you know he is generally negative towards consoles.
Nah, I know his history. You really want to get him going, say you like Windows 8. I said I liked Windows 8 around its launch (I did, still do). That was an... energetic... exchange lol.
I do think the projections here are a little off. They seem to be assuming that the console sales are going to be front-loaded, but honestly that assumption contradicts a consistent trend we see in every console generation. Specifically, in every console generation sales tend to increase as the consoles ages, up until the last year or two of their lifecycle.
The problem is his post is written in a way that fuels platform wars. He is basically saying he wants consoles to die. Derailing aside, if you know alexandros and his post history, you know he is generally negative towards consoles.
Well, I don't think "die" would be the right word. Maybe evolve? I mean, basically you'd see Sony provide a "Steam Machine" (let's call it that for this particular argument) with a certain standard spec for a certain cost. Microsoft could do the same. Perhaps with a slightly different spec, but same standardization (let's call the OS either SteamOS, or if you prefer - Windows 10 Game Edition for the sake of argument).
Biggest difference is the open market, so you can buy the keys for your games from anywhere. And the lack of charges to your credit card to use the internet on your device, because it's free.
I mean these things are already almost PCs now, pretty much. The difference in this case, at least from what I think alexandros is arguing, instead of Sony walling the ecosystem off, it remains more open.
I may agree in the sense that opening it up could indeed be a shot in the arm for a stagnating and/or declining market.
Nah, I know his history. You really want to get him going, say you like Windows 8. I said I liked Windows 8 around its launch (I did, still do). That was an... energetic... exchange lol.
Well, the interface was kinda ballsack for those without patience (aka 99 percent of the world). Lots of under the hood improvements but it was a bit Vista-like in execution (i.e. launch Windows 8 actually seemed slower than 7). With 8.1 all that goes away. 8.1 is lightning, and a great OS. For those of us that don't like Metro, Classic Shell is free and does the trick too. Now THIS is off kilter in this thread lol.
Last gen was over inflated with grandma and soccer mom casual market because of the Wii, and it continued with the Kinect. That market moves from one fad to another, I bet Sony wants a piece of that market with morpheus. Right now we're seeing the console market readjust.
"Man, those grandmas and soccer moms sure bought a lot of software. 900 million of them on 100 million consoles. Kinda like a regular successful game console. Wait, those must've been fads too!"
Considering that most generations had life spans closer to five or six years, my previous statement is pretty close to accurate.
Now, as for the current generation. While it officially started in 2013 it effectively only starred in 2014. So we're at about the 1.5 year mark right now, and rumor has it that Sony is eyein a price drop this year.
Between that, and the number of games expected to come out in 2016, the three year mark likely will be the peak for PS4 sales.
Even after that however, there's no reason to expect a sudden and highly dramatic decline. Most consoles end up selling the bulk of thier units after they've seen a price drop. I see no reason why the PS4 should be any different.
Thus my earlier statement that an early peak was unlikely.
I mean, we're all asking what happened to the Console market from last gen... some number of them may have moved on to MOBAs and TF2s and World of Tanks and all that other crazy PC stuff.
And I can see the argument for having an open platform. Would be better for just about everyone.
However, PCs are still too complicated to put under the TV and be able to fire it up and have everything just work with the ease and simplicity of a Console.
I see where he's coming from, just don't see a close timetable for that to change. Maybe in a decade. Who knows.
This is why many people are happy about the the PS4's success and hope that it dominates the market. They want it to become the defacto standard. Yet, apparently, this will only lead to arrogance and laurels being squashed in chairs.
This is why many people are happy about the the PS4's success and hope that it dominates the market. They want it to become the defacto standard. Yet, apparently, this will only lead to arrogance and laurels being squashed in chairs.
It's still a walled garden. With only a single manufacturer. This lack of competition is a bad thing for the market, as is always the case with monopolies.
Imagine if only 1 company was allowed to make hd TVs. We wouldn't have the fierce competition for price and features if it was a closed walled garden
Hang on a minute. So, the 34M figure doesn't include the Wii U, but the 50M and 110M figures do? It seems bizarre that the guy would start his sentence ignoring the Wii U and finish the sentence including it. That would also mean that IDG expect all three consoles to only sell 16M combined May-Dec. Well, even less than that, I guess, if we need to add the U's LTD to the 34M before subtracting from the 50M. Something's not right here. =/
Wii cross-ownership was very high with households that owned either a PS3 or X360 as well. Perhaps households that bought 2 consoles last gen are only buying 1 this gen, which is also impacting the comparisons?
Would be very interesting to dig up the number of households that owned one or more of the last gen boxes compared to number of households that bought one of the new boxes. The dip in households likely wouldn't be as large a % as the dip in total hardware sales.
On the same note, I've actually been wondering if a significant number of Bone owners also own a PS4. That would explain why hardware estimates seem to put Bone installed base at a bit more than half of PS4's, while Ubi's sales apart from the bump driven by the AC bundles would indicate the Bone's installed base is a good bit less than half of PS4's.
There is nothing inherently faddish about these consumers -- pretty clearly they are still gaming, as the enormous and still growing success of iOS attests to. They just aren't doing so on consoles anymore, because the new consoles are bad at meeting their needs.
I'd say consoles are just as capable of meeting their needs as ever, if not more so. The problem is, they already own a device their smartphone which can also meet their needs.
What can be done to attract them again? Or are they permanently lost because Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft can't figure out how to appeal to them?
I guess by convincing them that they'll have even more fun with more core-ish experiences on consoles. But as I pointed out above, it's a relatively tough sell because of the hardware investment required. Though in that regard, at least console hardware is sold near cost, so you are getting a lot of bang for your buck if/when you do jump in.
The PS1 generation saw similar percentage growth to last gen: it was ~80% larger than the SNES/Genesis generation that came before it. The PS2 generation was 35% larger still.
So the difference in the Wii generation wasn't that the overall console market grew; that was, up until that point, normal behavior. The difference is that the consoles couldn't figure out how to retain customers like it had in the past.
I think a big part of the reason for the explosion in Gen5 was increased accessibility. The PS1 was pretty affordable, and the optical media made games at lot cheaper than they had been in the previous generations. Similarly, Ninty increased accessibility with the Wii by greatly simplifying the controls. Mobile offers great accessibility by virtue of literally being in your hand already. iOS exploded when Palm and Windows Mobile never did because it could be operated by toddlers, grandmas, and everyone in between. People aren't inherently opposed to using technology or having fun. They just don't want to learn a bunch of stuff and spend a bunch of money to do it.
It's not just between generations, but even within generations, costs continue to rise. Killzone may be a particular exception -- I don't know, I haven't studied it -- but we're talking overall averages. Assassin's Creed III, for instance, cost more than all the ACs that came before it put together. Halo 4 was the same. Those may be outliers on the other end of the bellcurve, of course; what we're looking for is averages, and from what I can tell, the average is much higher than 20% increase over 5 years, although it's certainly possible it's 80% and not 100%.
Why did AC3 cost double what the other two cost? Did it have double the content or something? Did that translate in to double the sales? If not, perhaps that wasn't really the best use of their money. Maybe they'd have been better off making AC3 more like the first two, and using the additional money to make a pirate game. I could spend a billion dollars to make my game, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and that certainly doesn't mean I need to.
I think that's right, but that causes its own problems. Because costs continue to ramp up relentlessly, keeping a stable consumer base with increasing costs is a bad recipe in the long term -- which is why I suspect we're seeing increasingly fewer games released at retail on consoles.
Well, I agree that more and more money is being dumped in to "the game that sold well last year," but I don't think it really follows that it's becoming more expensive to make games per se. Rather, all of the money they have is being funneled in to the known winners instead of being used to try new things. I'd argue that it's better to spread that money around a bit more. You end up with more variety, and games which are still nearly as appealing. (A bit of googling tells me AC3 sales were only 33% higher than AC2, despite costing 100% more to make, and yes, I'm just assuming you're correct about the 100% bit. lol) As a bonus, with more variety, you have a better chance of attracting a broader audience, as we were discussing above.
FWIW, I would certainly categorize karting games as "casual friendly" in that it doesn't take a great deal of skill/dexterity to play competently and have a good time. Same probably goes for Galaxy and to some extent, Smash. The fact that there's enough going on such that a skilled/"core" player will likely still dominate the match doesn't mean the game isn't "casual." As an example, Wii Sports and Sports Champions are both uber-casual in that just about anyone can play competently, though only the latter offers enough depth of control to really satisfy core gamers and keep all players coming back for more, but again, that additional depth doesn't mean SC is no longer a game for casuals. I'd consider "core" games to be the stuff that's actually hard to play; games like Llamatron, Turrican, Carnage Heart, or Civilization, and to some extent shooters like Call of Duty, etc. Need for Speed is a casual game, and Gran Turismo is a core game
though not as core as something like Carnage Heart or Civ, obviously
Seriously? Why would you guys rather have people speculating about the reason for a ban than knowing? I mean, it's not too hard to guess in this particular instance, but I figured you'd rather have people knowing what's disallowed. =/
I mostly agree, but would add further thoughts: this is no different than saying "With the PS1, Sony was able to draw in fans of 'cinematic' style games like no one before, thanks to games like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VII."
That's also true, and it's part of the reason the console market grew so much from the SNES generation which preceded the PS1. Then, the console industry was able to keep those customers by continuing to service their needs with games in future generations. And that last part is the difference: each generation draws in new types of consumers (or at least that had been true up until now). Then, future console generations would build on that and retain those new customers over time.
That didn't happen this gen; all those new customers have basically been lost to newer, faster growing platforms like Facebook and iOS. Again, the difference isn't in attracting new customers; every generation before this one attracted new demographics that hadn't been gaming on consoles before. The difference was that those new customers weren't retained this time.
I'd agree that the advent of optical media allowed for a lot more content in games in addition to significantly reducing distribution costs as described above but what exactly did the PS2 do to "expand the audience," in your opinion? Seems to me that was more about general growth of the market than reaching out to new demographics with increased accessibility and/or new types of gameplay.
This is anecdotal knowledge and I can't provide a link, but I know for a fact that KZ:SF had extensive work done on it by Sony Cambridge as a support studio.
Maybe that's where the other 20% came from? In the article I read, they weren't talking about the size of their own staff, but rather the number of people who worked on the game.
The problem is that those types of games that console gaming is mostly geared towards. Yes, there is some degree of indie and mid-tier development on consoles, but those teams seem far more often to be PC-focused and show up on consoles later, when they're already successful. The AAA industry is what is truly holding console gaming up. I agree that it is not healthy, but that for consoles is the standard. In fact, every time I've seen someone talk about indie gaming from a business standpoint, it's for filling the gaps between AAA releases (which we are seeing fewer of)
No, the shift towards the AAA end of the market is really something that developed last gen. Prior to that, we had all kinds of different games on consoles. Even back in the cartridge days when games were inherently expensive to distribute.
It can be frustrating trying to talk to people who don't really listen, but that's no reason to not be civil. Zhuge seems like a good guy overall, and he knows his shit, but he really doesn't respond well to being challenged.
It's still a walled garden. With only a single manufacturer. This lack of competition is a bad thing for the market, as is always the case with monopolies.
Imagine if only 1 company was allowed to make hd TVs. We wouldn't have the fierce competition for price and features if it was a closed walled garden
The thing is, no one is being prevented from making consoles, or from making games for them. "Competition" doesn't mean it's a bad thing if everyone chooses the best option available, especially if a focus on a single platform helps to reduce development costs, etc. In fact, the entire point of a competition is to select a winner, not to engineer a "tie" for the guys that got beat.
Well, I don't think "die" would be the right word. Maybe evolve? I mean, basically you'd see Sony provide a "Steam Machine" (let's call it that for this particular argument) with a certain standard spec for a certain cost. Microsoft could do the same. Perhaps with a slightly different spec, but same standardization (let's call the OS either SteamOS, or if you prefer - Windows 10 Game Edition for the sake of argument).
Biggest difference is the open market, so you can buy the keys for your games from anywhere. And the lack of charges to your credit card to use the internet on your device, because it's free.
I mean these things are already almost PCs now, pretty much. The difference in this case, at least from what I think alexandros is arguing, instead of Sony walling the ecosystem off, it remains more open.
I may agree in the sense that opening it up could indeed be a shot in the arm for a stagnating and/or declining market.
Yeah, I can understand this. The problem is the way he put it feels like a "consoles are dead" post or more accurately "I wish consoles were dead". The way I interpreted it was "I want consoles to die and Steam Machines to replace them."
Another thing regarding US Sales is that last gen PS360 sold ~75 million units, that's MORE than one console per household, there is no room for growth at all from the hardware side, the growth in that market will come exclusively from the software side, if you're looking for hardware growth, USA is the wrong market, households don't usually have multiple consoles.
That's why you're seeing hardware growth on PS4 in other markets, those markets didn't mature enough to get to a point where every household on average has one console.
This is absolutley right. This gen I think we will see significant growth in the UAE market. Yosp has stated in a past interview that they were blown away by the sales in that sector. I think we will start to see the importance of the US market diminish significantly relative to other WW markets this gen both in software and hardware sales.
I also think its too early to really judge how much either console will sell throughout the gen. We haven't seen the impact of price drops or morpheus on PS4 sales and MS is still recovering from their disastrous pre launch. While the general sales trend is set for the gen (PS4>XB1>WIIU) the rate of sale could change drastically depending on various factors. As it is right now PS4 sales are slowing and XB1 sales have fialed to really take off outside of staggering holiday promotions. I'm really curious to see what sort of impact a potential price cut will have on PS4 sales and whether or not an increased investment in 1st party content will pay off for MS. However, no matter what sort of sales trends we see arise from these scenarios I do think it is safe to say we will see a significant contraction compared to last gen. It is painfully obvious that the rise of mobile gaming has wrought havoc on the userbase that adopted Wii in droves last gen and we are unlilely to see them investing in another console again with such ubiquity. The only way I could see this not being the case is if the cost of entry for these consoles drops to sub $100 prior to the next gen starting. Even then it is not likely that it will capture that market in its totality but it would certainly make some strides.
Look, I don't mean to sound harsh, but keep that opinion out of a console sales thread. You're not only derailing the thread, you're making yourself look like some PC elitist.
I don't see why though. A research firm estimates that consoles will sell a specific amount of units until 2019 and I commented on that data saying that it will be a positive thing if the consoles' decreased sales get absorbed by open platforms such as PC or Steam Machines and it will be a negative if they get absorbed by mobile. My post is certainly on topic, not inflammatory or derogatory in any way shape or form, so the only reason someone would take offence to it would be that he or she personally considers the wish for locked down platforms to lose relevance a personal insult. It's an opinion, why can't I express it?
I don't see why though. A research firm estimates that consoles will sell a specific amount of units until 2019 and I commented on that data saying that it will be a positive thing if the consoles' decreased sales get absorbed by open platforms such as PC or Steam Machines and it will be a negative if they get absorbed by mobile. My post is certainly on topic, not inflammatory or derogatory in any way shape or form, so the only reason someone would take offence to it would be that he or she personally considers the wish for locked down platforms to lose relevance a personal insult. It's an opinion, why can't I express it?
First off, what do PC's and Steam Machines, even mobile, have to do with this? Second, this is not the way you phrased it earlier. So, pardon me, but your first post does seem like fuel to platform wars.
First off, what do PC's and Steam Machines, even mobile, have to do with this? Second, this is not the way you phrased it earlier. So, pardon me, but your first post does seem like fuel to platform wars.
He was on topic here though - and his 'yup' reply was an affirmation of a post where his name was mentioned, to be fair. I don't think he was stirring for trouble here.
He was on topic here though - and his 'yup' reply was an affirmation of a post where his name was mentioned, to be fair. I don't think he was stirring for trouble here.
The thing is he didn't express his opinion in a way that avoids conflicts. I'm not the only one who found his post problematic. Then again, I may be a bit presumptuous of his motives because I'm aware of his post history.
I hope these predictions are true assuming that PC gaming and Steam Machines will pick up the slack. The reduced relevance of traditional console platforms would be great news for the future of gaming. However, if that part of the audience is lost to mobile then I see dark days ahead for core gaming.
So, having a unified platform that's under Microsoft's control would be an improvement, and could not possibly result with anti-consumer policies when there's no competition?
The thing is he didn't express his opinion in a way that avoids conflicts. I'm not the only one who found his post problematic. Then again, I may be a bit presumptuous of his motives because I'm aware of his post history.
