PS3 and PSP slump, Wii hammered too
PS3 sales are slumping, but not as bad as the Wii's sales, which have been cut in half.
(Credit: Sony)Sony latest earnings show that it continues to be hammered by the worldwide recession and strong yen, suffering a net loss of $390.5 million in the quarter that ended June 30.
The bright spot was Sony's motion picture division, which saw a 6.5 percent boost that was largely attributable to the relatively strong showing of "Angels & Demons" at the box office. But almost everything else, including TV, video game, and computer sales, was down in a big way.
In an article, The New York Times highlighted the 37.4 percent year-over-year slump in gaming and computer sales (Vaio PC). The article noted that PlayStation 3 game consoles were "particularly sluggish" and that software sales had dropped.
According to the report, Sony said it sold about 1.1 million PlayStation 3s and 1.3 million PlayStation Portables in the latest quarter, compared with 1.6 million PS3s and 3.7 million PSPs in the same period a year ago.
The wane in PSP sales is particularly brutal, although part of that slowdown may have been due to rumors earlier in the quarter that Sony would release a new PSP later in the year. (And sure, enough, the PSP Go was unveiled in June at E3.) Also, the constant spate of rumors involving the potential arrival of a new PS3 Slim certainly hasn't helped sales of the current game console.
On a more positive note, we recently attended a PlayStation preview in New York that highlighted the PSP Go and the exclusive titles available for both the PSP and PS3 platforms during the upcoming holiday-shopping season. Overall, it looked pretty good.
Sony can also be consoled by the fact that sales are also way down for the Wii, as Nintendo reported a 66 percent fall in quarterly operating profit on "slowing demand for its Wii console and a stronger yen."
Nintendo sold 2.23 million Wii consoles in the quarter, compared with 5.17 million the same quarter a year earlier.
However, Nintendo still posted a profit of $445 million and is forecasting that it will sell 26 million Wii consoles before year's end--along with 30 million DS handheld game players, which, by the way, is seeing increased competition from another handheld device. Nintendo didn't mention the PSP as the rival in its earning call, but rather Apple's iPhone.
Comments? Is the PlayStation franchise in serious trouble or will it pull out of its funk this holiday season? Does Nintendo need to cut the price of Wii?
Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter. 
As for the game prices, I don't know where techbt is shopping, but I sure don't see any 50% difference in pricing of new games. The new games are usually on par with any other software I see. Of course, I don't buy new games unless it's something I've been waiting for (Diablo 3, Star Craft 2). As a PC gamer, I buy PS3 games, but not while they still have the "new" prices.
BUT at the same time I get the Xbox users who I can understand may not need all that functionality of the machine; bedroom gamers, college students and other gamers on a budget. Why do they have to pay more for the machine and games, which ineviatbly caused developers to move away. If Sony could have done it all again, I think they should have brought out 2 versions of the PS3 - but then would I know that would have not only inefficient but also that Blu-ray may not have become the format war winner. I am grateful that I got a fantastic Blu-ray player at a great price that can play games. I just think that it's a shame that Sony didn't cater more for the straight gamer.
As far as Xbox live being a better service than PSN... I guess that is true, Halo's matchmaking system is maybe the single greatest achievement in video game history... but Warhawk is still a lot of fun =)
$60 games is freaking ridiculous, the main reason I only buy major titles (Halo, GTA, Final Fantasy, Madden, Metal Gear, Gears of War, God of War). If it isn't something with some serious history or a sure fire AAA I don't even think about buying it.
The fact that I use my PS3 for things other than gaming has led to me using it more for gaming as well (multi-plat titles), but like I said... as far as gaming goes there isn't much difference.
Yet.
But at this point they absolutely need to deliver a killer 4th quarter or they will lose the third-party developers. Sony has enough inhouse product to keep the platform alive on their own just as Nintendo kept the GameCube going but Sony doesn't have the resources to do a true PS4 anytime soon so the road can only get tougher from here on out.
PS3 development costs are still high, Sony's penchant of launching their exclusives in direct competition with their partners' offerings, and their constant hyping of their own exclusives far beyond the horizon do not endear themselves to the big cross-platform players. Activision is the only one, so far, to actively call out Sony on it but the current quarterly financials for Ubisoft make it clear they're none too pleased with Sony.
Another 4th quarter rout, like the last two XMAS quarters, and Sony will be left to their own devices.
Literally.
And to top it all off, Xbox will have their 3rd gen out next year with Natal.
I was an Atari fanboy, then a Nintendo fanboy, then a Sega fanboy, then a Sony fanboy and now a MS fanboy. Point is, I am actually not a fanboy at all. I take what is on top and MS is the king right now.
If I was them, I would consider improving the current PS3 with some more memory, maybe redesign the connectors to have a few more ports in the rear and revamp the software a little. Maybe hire another company to remake the internet browser into an actual fully working browser that doesn't crash so easily. Too bad they didn't make the memory upgradable in the first place.
Doing that might make me consider replacing my PS3 with a PS3B or whatever they called it if it was at a decent price point. I just couldn't justify spending another $400, even is it was an all new Super PS4 or something.
The 360 Falls short on internet, multmedia playback, and HD Video Playback. While it's a good gaming system, it's not a good "one box attached to the TV" device. The PS3 does far better there (Though Sony can improve that a heck of a lot) and that's exactly how we use it. The PS3 is also a good gaming device. The debate there isn't that they are good it's quantifying "how good".
And odd that this article doesn't mention the Xbox 360 - I believe the entertainment of Microsoft is still losing money too?
Their last report had them cost-reducing the 360 by 31% which roughly matches the price cut on the 360 last fall.
They were making money off the hardware then, they're making money off the hardware now.
Only difference is they're making a lot more money off the online component than before to help fund the next price cut.
Which is one reason Sony hasn't cut PS3 pricing; by their own admission last April they're still losing significant money on PS3 hardware and any price cut would be instantly matched by MS.
So losing more money won't buy them much.
By all reports, most of the decline in PS3 sales isn't coming from gamers anyway; its coming from the BluRay crowd moving to dedicated players.
That's the deal Sony made: they used the PS3 to build up BluRay but in doing so, they tore down playstation.
Win some, lose some.
I think Xbox is profitable (even on hardware) at this point, but it's part of the entertainment division that includes the Zune money-pit. Sony needs a price cut, because even if MS matches it, it seems there are a lot of people standing on the sidelines for PS3 but you don't hear people saying they'll buy an Xbox after it drops the price, so MS may not get as much as a lift in sales as Sony from a cut. Sony is definitely in a tough spot right now, but I don't count them out, yet.
Though, a large portion of the loss and recent sales drop in the division have been attributed to the Zune by most analysts, which has had declining sales for nearly 9 months now. So it's really hard to say how much is attributable to the Xbox, as Microsoft doesn't break down the individual numbers.
xbox360 entertainment division has always made profit for awhile which includes the Zune hardware
and that is 2 years listed and xbox doesn't just make money on hardware but the licensing sales
ya there profits are down but it is sitll a profit
http://360.kombo.com/article.php?artid=16939
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/24/xbox-division-profits-for-second-straight-year-but/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14844.cfm
xbox360 entertainment division has always made profit for awhile which includes the Zune hardware
and that is 2 years listed and xbox doesn't just make money on hardware but the licensing sales
ya there profits are down but it is sitll a profit
http://360.kombo.com/article.php?artid=16939
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/24/xbox-division-profits-for-second-straight-year-but/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14844.cfm
Microsoft's Entertainment & Devices Division saw revenues fall 25 percent year-over-year from $1.59 billion to $1.19 billion, but the main reason for that decline wasn't the Xbox business."
thats still a profit
sony computer entertainment division is losing hundreds of millions
http://www.hwrnews.com/?p=3878
and thats one quarter
which includes the killzone 2 profits
There are plenty of other things I would rather spend that $400 on anyway. Sorry Sony.
J
For games, X360 has better graphics due to the DirectX graphic library, so people rather play multiplayer games on the X360. Sure, the PS3 has a good selection of single player exclusives, but single player games do not have the re-playability of multiplayer games. Who cares about having superior hardware if you don't have the games or developer-friendly enough to make things look pretty?
PSN may be "free," but what can you do on the PSN without multiplayer games?
All in all, it's just a paperweight due to the lack of exclusive multiplayer games. Sony failed big time. I would have returned mine if I didn't need it to watch The Dark Knight in Blu-ray...
Name me one instance where a cross-console game that the PS3 "grabbed the edge." The only cross-console game that looks pretty much identical is Resident Evil 5. Do you even know what you're talking about?
"offers quite a lot especially in the multiplayer department with Little Big Planet" <-- ROFL!
As for upscaled vs native, many people can't even tell what's standard and what's HD on TV. You expect them to be able to tell the difference between upscale 1080p and native 1080p?
The PS3 is an EPIC FAILURE.
ne gaming is better on the Xbox, but not because of what you said. There are many more players on Xbox and the online experience works better, according to reviews. Also, you should be able to see a difference between upscaled DVDs and Blu-ray unless you have a small HDTV.
And yes, Killzone 2 has better graphics than anything "now" on the 360, but I like the games better on the 360. The same argument was made by PS2 owners that said the Xbox had slightly better graphics, but the PS2 had the games.
Graphics wise PS3 and 360 are exactly the same so there is no winner them.
I'm not going into specifics on which console is better as both have a lot of positives and a lot of negatives but is PS3 and epic failure??? Apprently not since you talk trash about it yet you still bought one.
"FAIL! ... ROFL! ... EPIC FAILURE"
This is why I don't like online play anyone. Because they all talk like this.
As with game comparison, KEY SENTENCE: WHICH PLATFORM WAS GAME DEVELOPED ON FIRST? If the game developed on Xbox first, then the port will be crap because you aren't utilizing the cores on the PS3. Programming (every company has said so) on the PS3 is unique and much more difficult. R&D costs + Economy crap = Crappy Port. Games do look better on Xbox 360, some of them do. This is why though.
"neck and neck", are you kidding me? The 360 sells 60% more consoles per month when compared to the PS3. You sound almost as bad as he does. The 360 has a lead of 7.6 million, with the PS3 only selling 7.9 million.....almost a 2 to 1 ratio. PS3 has been out almost 3 years and the 360 almost 4. if the lead is that big, I wouldn't sit there and spout "neck and neck."
Your other problem is that we don't have to buy another system if it goes down, MS fixes it for free. Don't feel bad if most of the PS3 sales are to people that just wanted a Blu-ray player and now the sales are dropping further because the stand-alone systems much cheaper than a PS3.
And of course it's not possible to run Killzone on the 360, it was programmed for the PS3. Could the 360 do those graphics....yes, but a developer hasn't done one yet. I guess since your games are so much better that more people are buying the games......oh, their not. The sales of Killzone 2 were not even close to some of the 360 exclusive sales numbers.
No console selling games. MGS4 didn't move consoles in the likes of Halo or Gears of War. PS3 versions of multi platform games are inferior to the 360s.
Online environment. It's free, but it sucks.
Over priced console packed with things people don't nee.
Now the most expensive bluray player. I was at Costco the other day and they had a Panasonic bluray player for $160. $160 vs $400. A non-gamer who just wants a player wouldn't spend over twice the amount to get a PS3. Since the 360 is the best console, one can get a 360 AND a stand alone bluray player for LESS than a PS3.
No matter what Sony does, they've lost the console war. They're never going to win in price. They're never going to win in games library and they're already lost the online environment.
I have a PS3 and a 360. I won't be getting a 3rd Gen Xbox unless it's last console standing. They burned me with the orginal, and while they stood behind the 2nd the company has burned me out on other products as well. The 360 is going to pay the price.
I completely agree. See what happens when one buys BOTH consoles?
It can make one speak entirely of the truth. Separate the adults from the little kids.
Online environment does not suck. It may not be as refined but it works perfectly well.
I don't see anything in the consol I don't "need". The bluetooth is awesome. I have a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse for it now, use them all the time when I'm browsing. The graphics are second to none (including the 360), and the games are exactly what I expect from a console. I prefer playing MMORPGs myself (on my computer that blows away both the 360 and the PS3), but when company comes over the PS3 gets a real workout.
Oh, I think you have a little something on your lip there...a little brown smudge...from KISSING MSs A$$.
I'm sure 360 owners love their 360s, and I'm fine with that. I like the PS3 which is why I bought it, apparently you have a problem with that for some reason. One more problem you might have is WE DON'T CARE.
So yeah, I guess if you want a stand alone gaming console and have an ethernet jack near your TV, then the Pro system is a great buy.
you can pay yearly for xbox and considering its less then 4bucks a month with lagless service 59.95 over 4 years maturity along with a massive online community
where you get free ps3 network with lag due to wifi or a poorly designed service and a small online community with 0 techsupport
btw try calling sony online tech support after 90days after you purchase the console they usually will deflect you to publisher
If MS never releases a 3rd gen, you may be right. IF they do (and they need too since the 360 is missing key things like BD support) by your logic Sony should make bank because of their competative advantage.
the ps2 launched at 300, which is HALF of what the ps3 launched for. $300 is reasonable at launch time, $600 is ridiculous. This isn't Sony bashing, its a reality check. Sony had fantastic systems that dominated the last two generations of consoles. They dropped the ball with the PS3 and have lost 3 billion dollars because of it.
The iphone and all 3G phones are a completely different product. What I pointed out is that EVERY SINGLE high priced console has failed... yes EVERY ONE... the PS3 is no different. What is funny is that in the last quarter Sony sold a half million less than the previous year... from 1.6 to 1.1 million. As for Microsoft, they don't need BD support, the LAST thing I want is an all in one system, BD is still a fringe product that the vast majority of consumers have yet to purchase.
I see you all the time in these flame wars.. we meet again
The only thing the XBOX lags in is BD support, and they could always add that without making a new generation, as long as full backward-compatibility was ensured.
When you say "specs" what do you mean? as far as computer-type specs, the only advantage the PS3 has is a "better" processor, which is arguable because the complexity of development has stopped many games from reaching their full potential, even PS3 exclusives.
When I say better specs I mean, Video, Processor. BD, memory card ports, ability to slap Linux on it (not a bid deal but oepns up some options for Hulu and Netflix if/when the have Linux support) Easy Hard Drive upgrade. WiFi. HDMI out, DTS sound.
A couple of these you can add to the 360 now. Some they add to some versions but not others. Some you may be able to add later without calling it a new generation (but you would still force game makers to live with DVD capacity to play to the lowest common denominator). Initally the PS3 had far batter backwards compatability. they removed that. I had to throw away half my Xbox library when my 360 replaced my Xbox (tried to keep the Xbox for legacy purposes but it died).
In my opinion MS built the Xbox to be the next gen console but with no intent on it being a 10 year console. Sony did do this. So far it hasn't mattered much. I think it will matter down the road.
IMHO, when you look back at this generation's sales you have to take into account that a decent amount of the Wii's sales went to a market that was not targeted by XBOX or PS3- non-gamers, or at least not gamers in the sense that we think gamers are. This untapped market accounts for the Wii's success, but it makes it tougher to compare it to the other, real gaming systems
1st tip make ps2 games work on ps3 again!!!
2nd tip start selling the slim already
3rd and cut the price down i have to eat man
If you are only viewing it as 1 component (eg. only as a blu-ray), then yes, it's not a cheap machine.
However to me, it's an awesome blu-ray player, it's an excellent gaming platform, and thirdly, it's my home media player. I can play all my movie files, all my home movies of the kids, music files and such all through the console, and wirelessly to boot.
For those points to me, it's a great piece of machinery if you use all of it together.
I'm rich, I own a PS3, mainly because I love watching Blu-Ray movies on my HDTV, but when I see companies like Activision saying they lose money by releasing games on the PS3 rather than just staying exclusive to the 360 or Wii... that is proof that MOST GAMERS (excluding people like me) prefer buying an affordable console! What does that mean? It means less people buy Sony products, it means we get less games because developers prefer making games for the majority of gamers... not the minority of PS3 owners.
If it wasn't for Blu-Ray movie playback, I would of sold my PS3 a long time ago! I haven't used my PS3 as a gaming system for over 6 months!!!!!!!!
I agree with roachbrain. You should have left out "i'm rich" in your otherwise failed point.
A: Hell Yes! Sony needs to rethink its approach in the gaming space.
Q: Does Nintendo need to worry about iPhone/iPod Touch?
A: Nah! iPhone games are not at DS/DSi level also $229 vs. $169.....you do the math.
People buy phones anyway, so the higher price is irrelevant. The question is, is the DS enough better for people to buy and carry around a second device. For serious gamers, the answer is "of course." But for the general public, there's a risk that it might start to be "no."
- by koreshonfire July 30, 2009 11:55 AM PDT
- "Killzone 2 is a PS3 exclusive, so how does it look better on the PS3 when it's only on the PS3? FAIL!"
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Renegade Knight July 30, 2009 1:18 PM PDT
- Don't forget the 10 year life span of the console. Xbox is a 3 year device. 360 maybe 5.
- Like this
-
- by KTLA_knew July 30, 2009 1:53 PM PDT
- Renegade Knight, do you think that if you keep saying that over and over in post after post, it will somehow magically become true? That would be quite a trick!
- Like this
-
- by Renegade Knight July 30, 2009 2:40 PM PDT
- @KTLA_knew
- Like this
-
- by jeremywilliams July 30, 2009 7:50 PM PDT
- from my experience, EVERYONE I know who is not technologically savvy can't tell the difference even between 480p and 1080p, so unless you hang out with other geeks all day, I think the point that everyone can tell is not a valid one.
- Like this
-
- by Renegade Knight July 31, 2009 3:02 PM PDT
- @ jeremywilliams
- Like this
-
- by george_liquor August 3, 2009 12:13 PM PDT
- @Renegade: The PS2's long life is no guarantee for the PS3. The Atari 2600 was manufactured for 14 years, long after Atari itself became a bit player in the video game industry.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (158 Comments)Killzone 2 is a PS3 exclusive title. That being said, Kz2 is graphically superior to anything theXBOX360 is currently offering. The reason multiplatform games typically look better on the 360 is due to developing costs and difficulties programming on the Cell Processor. You are obviously a MS fanboy and are making ridiculous assertions. If you honestly think upscale looks are indiscernible from Blu ray, you probably do not have a true 1080p television to make an accurate assessment. Also, the PS3 has a wonderful DVD upscale feature.
I will readily admit that I am a Sony fan boy, and have been since the PSX. I also admit that Sony has made big time marketing mistakes that has turned a phenomenal piece of hardware into subpar gaming console. Sony has been taking a lot of strides lately to turn things around; by coming up with an above average exclusive title roster, as well as enhancements to its PSN. However, I think it will all be too little too late. Which really does break my heart.
The trick would be if Sony actually didn't do it. So far they have with the PS2. MS didn't with the Xbox, and they finally "Promised" with the 360. Sony proved it. MS is hot air at this point. I'm sold on the Sony reality over the MS wishful thinking. I've got better things to do with my money than upgrade something every 3 years for no good reason. Just to be clear no good reason means replacing broken low quality crap (RROD anyone?) or Unsuported but othewise functioning consoles (XBox).
Funny you mention that. I ran the experiment and learned they can tell the difference between 480p and 1080p.