Comments on: Yep, Microsoft and Sony sell game consoles too

Did you know that Microsoft and Sony sell video game consoles? It looks like the average Amazon customer forgot.

[Damaio]

One thing to consider about this, Amazon was running a 15 days of video game deals prior to christmas and I would estimate it was at least 80% Wii games. Thesee daily specials went out via email, text message and direct advertising on their site so it was a nice hard selling job by them but considering how Wii heavy it was, I wonder if this skewed the xmas results?

I am not making any comment on which system is better or not but being that this article references Amazon sales and considering how realistically Amazon pushed one platform during a big sales event, are the results because of platform, directed marketing or both?

All I know is I signed up for the alerts and was tired by day 6 that it was almost all Wii games; with PS3 getting a couple and Xbox getting a couple. I'd love for the author to look further into this instead of assuming the results are a result of console popularity; it may be but I think there are more factors to consider than a direct line.

[terminalblue]

i swear that you write he worst blog on cnet.

[roachbrain]

And yet, here you are.

It's like going to a go-go bar and complaining that there are naked girls around.

[Dawgpdr07]

The same people that called themselves gamers 3 years ago won't settle to have just a Wii. This type of report seems to ignore that gamers can own more than one game system. I do see the Wii appealing to more people, mostly people that haven't been interested in video games in the past. Were it not for the Wii, they still wouldn't be in gaming and Sony and Microsoft would not be competing for their cash. I don't think there would be too big a difference for Sony and Microsoft if the Wii wasn't here at all. Seriously, owning two consoles. How hard is that to imagine? Nintendo is not competing with Sony and Microsoft. They have their niche in the market and the people that were just brought into gaming wouldn't have batted an eye at the other two systems anyway.

[XxBlahxX]

What you meant is that PS3 and 360 have a niche. They are targeted to the hardcore gamers.

[SteveW928]

Don, I'm beginning to think you are a one (maybe two) hit wonder. Stay tuned... next up, the irrelevance of Blu-ray.
I think I've responded to a couple of these by you already... but while Wii might be a competitor on paper, it really is a different beast. It's technology from 5-10 years ago with a new interface or UI twist. In that sense, it is in a league of its own. However, it has little in common with either the PS3 or Xbox 360. They are high-def players, media consoles, and true current generation of video gaming.
Is one better or worse than the other? No, not really. Just very different consoles aimed at different markets. If Wii is outselling... maybe that is a stronger indication that some segment of the gaming market wants something different than 100 different 1st-person shooters with different high-def themes pasted on top. In that regard, I agree... the Wii is unique. There is a also a price difference. People getting a game console for younger children at Christmas would probably go with the Wii as well. The PS3 (and I assume Xbox) seem aimed at teens and adults.
Bottom line... they are quite different, even if technically in the same 'market' of game consoles.

[sebastien.kalonji]

Did you actually read his comment? Microsoft gave him the ROD for christmas, noone bought him a 360. He is talking about the 360 he already owned. So MS might have fixed the ROD on new machines, old machines still die of ROD.

[unr3stricted]

Both sides of the "competition debate" are wrong. The Wii is a direct competitor for many of MS and Sony's users, but for the other half of the Wii users, Microsoft and Sony never would have gotten them anyways. Little kids, most girls, and older and retired people never would compare the games the Xbox 360 or PS3 have and consider those instead of the Wii. The games made for the Wii are very specific to certain groups, while the Xbox 360, and to some extent the PS3, have games made for diehard gamers.

The Xbox has more of a 16-50 male user group, and they do a good job of tackling that user group. Such a good job in fact, that even with less consoles sold compared to the Wii, the 360 still consistantly sells far more software than the Wii. And what is the point of selling a console for a $0 profit if no one buys your games? The 360 is not irrelivent, especially if they can sell more games, with less consoles out there for those games to be played on. That means they are doing a better job of creating quality content, which is what will decide whether or not the Wii was the real thing, or just a couple year fad. Because, believe it or not fads DON'T normally last only a year, beanie babies, furbies, jeans with holes in them and so much more did well for years after the public forgot about them.

The PS3 on the other hand, while getting out a respectable number of good games this year, is too far behind, with too little content, and too high of a price tag.

[gerrrg]

Hard-core gamers chock full of elitism? Another sign of the declination of civilization.

[roachbrain]

And I suppose you?re the latter??

Go back to listening Depeche Mode wile you cut yourself, you emo finger banger.

[rennelsd]

Ok, so first off, I must say that I LOVE to read these opinion sections of any article, because it is so entertaining to see the diversity of love/hate relationships people have with whatever topic is being discussed.

Second, the bottom line here is that we live in a capitalist society. Making money in our society depends on having a product people will buy. Period. It doesn't matter how you try to define the market and justify the capabilities of any of these systems. Nintendo is selling console after console, accessory after accessory, and game after game. The other systems aren't selling as well. Next year, who knows who will be on top. However, at the time, instead of bashing or bad-naming anyone, why not applaud Nintendo for what it's accomplished and leave it at that. In the end, they could care less about our opinions, as long as we keep buying their brand.

Just my 2 cents! Happy Holidays everyone!

[roachbrain]

This most be a chick.

[heavydevelopment]

I tried the Wii this Christmas because my cousin got it for his kids. It was fun and worth the $200 (although all the extra controllers and accessories you have to buy for the Wii can easily put you close to $400). But as "real" gaming console? Let's just say I wouldn't give up my PS3. The graphics and resolution are far superior to the Wii plus there's the Blu Ray player. With that said if I had kids I'd get the Wii--the interactive game play is definitely ideal for kids. If Sony were smart they would do a make over of the PS2 to compete with the Wii and price point and game play. Sony and MS got caught off guard for the demand for something like the Wii. They assumed that the market was looking for the next generation of high tech, when really innovative play and price point was where it was at for a majority of the market (in hindsight it looks obvious). Anyways there will be a certain segment of the market that is not interested in the Wii--like myself--and as some of these kids that have the Wii now want more intense game play as they grow older the PS3 and Xbox fill that void. So fret not, the Xbox and PS3 will have customers but may never be the majority of the market again.

[joerickx]

Why does all technology reporting still resemble sports reporting? Why is selling 26 million Xbox units considered a failure? Why is is necessary to "dominate" a product category to be considered a success? Why do Microsoft and Sony have to "stop" Nintendo from "dominating" the video game business? Is Microsoft losing money selling 26 million Xbox units? I don't know, but I don't think they look at the sales figures like a football score. The reporting on technology slaes has always been done by guys who really wanted to be sports reporters, where there is always a clear winner and loser, and who wouldn't understand an Income Statement if you smacked them in the butt with it.

[TJ Spyke]

VG Chartz makes up their numbers, please don't make them look legit by quoting them or linking to them.

[XiroMisho]

The reason PS3's sales are "Low" is easy... I'll show you all why new PS3's aren't moving.

http://shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_nkwZps3Q20backwardsQ20compatibleQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZR40QQ_mdoZ

this is where I just got my PS3, with a third party two year warranty and a free game with HDMI cable it ran me around 500 bucks... oh, and it's got a 320GB harddrive.

the old broken backward compatible PS3's are selling like HOTCAKES! If Sony WOKE THE HELL UP they'd realize the reason they are not selling PS3's is because people don't want to buy their old PS2 games online, they want to play their games on their new console... and you know what, PS2 games do look better in HD through a PS3.... Sony just keeps shooting itself in the foot.

Drop the price a mere 50 bucks, throw the backward compatibility back in, and watch the sales double... in the meantime check the sales of the ebay repair men fixing the BC PS3's, and tell me that they don't know what they're doing.

[rlplaisted]

Isn't it obvious that many folks here are blogging with the intent to justify some decision they made to buy a certain console.

Let's play a game of logic. If Wii wasn't a direct competitor, then what Nintendo is doing would have been completely predictable, right? Sony and Microsoft would have said to themselves in 2004/2005, "Hey, let's let little Nintendo sell 3x more console and games than us. We make a better machine and therefore it's not a direct competitor. We're ok that Wii's may sell 100+million consoles and we'll be satisfied with perhaps 25 million in the end."

All you naysayers have short memories. Wii was supposed to be in last place, PS3 was supposed to be first. Don't you remember those forecasts 3 years ago. Heck, even Nintendo was caught by surprise because they didn't even build nearly enough factories to make the Wii. Why.....? Becasue the Wii is waaaaaaay more mainstream than anybody anticipated. Does it pale in comparison? Yes. Can it play the same games? No. In some households do people own Wii and Xbox or Wii and PS3? Yes. But most importantly, IN SOME HOUSEHOLDS IS IT THE ONLY CONSOLE? Y-E-S! Therefore it is a competitor. If people are willing to spend $250 for Wii+ $150 for the other three controllers + $$ fo games than they could have afforded the Xbox or PS3.

If only 50% of the people who own Wii have it as the only console, that's a huge competitor. Even if only 25% of Wii owners would have bought Xbox or PS3, that's really significant to Microsoft and Sony. Are there really people who say these consoles don't compete economically? Forget the performance comparison. Nobody can be that naive to say the Wii doesn't compete economically! Will a real college graduate please stand up.

[rgersmrk]

This is how most people use the Wii. They buy the Wii Sports package and Wii fitness. 3rd party developers are still scratching their heads at the Wii because 3rd party developers can't sell games on the Wii.

I'd like to see a number on how many software titles were sold per console. I wouldn't be surprised if the XBox 360 outsold the Wii.

At the end of the day there will be still be a huge demand for the hardcore online gaming the XBox and the PC does with WoW. The Wii just can't provide that kind of gaming experience and won't win those consumers over.

[roachbrain]

Oh crap, I think MS has a breeding lab somewhere just producing b*i*t*c*h*y little xbox fanboys.

First off a hardcore gamer is someone that plays whatever it is that calls there attention for hours on in. Not just Halo.

Second, what is it with all this in-depth games talk? In my experience most of the in-depth games mentioned are beatable within a few hours, and don't even have enough content to support replay value.

Nintendo did what they did and it paid off for them. Congrats!!!

[banzaigtv]

Had it not been for the RRoD, the XBOX 360 would have been in close competition with Nintendo. It can never be trusted, no matter how much Microsoft tries to improve the hardware. I hate to miss out on games like GTA IV, but at this point, I don't know where to turn to. I would get a Wii since at least it does have Guitar Hero games. I cannot rush to get a PS3 because of the price tag and the fact that Sony releases firmware updates that unfairly brick the consoles.

[aedmis13]

Imagine the following scenario:

Three different social units, each with members (stereo)typical of their segment of the population, enter a Walmart at the same time looking to purchase something entertaining to supplement their living room:

1. An older couple whose kids have all left the house for their own lives or who never had children
2. A group of 2-4 high school/college students or a group of 20/30-something bachelors
3. A family of 2-4 children aged 4-16


Group 1, the older couple is likely to consider DVDs (possibly even Blu-Ray), board games, or a Wii; upon examining their options they would likely see the benefit of the low-impact exercise that the Wii will provide and weigh this against the benefit of spending less money on the board games or DVDs. If they consider their vision to be adequate they may consider buying a Blu-ray player and the accompanying DVDs. The PS3 and the 360 are not on their radar as franchise games and high graphics have no impact on their purchase decision. They are not seeking to "fit-in" nor join in with the gaming community.


Group 2, the students will likely be discussing which console to purchase, weighing the proprietary franchises of PS3 and 360, debating graphics, speed, and other specifications for each system, the quality of online play and experience, and which games their friends already own. The Wii will not be on the judging block because: 1. almost everyone knows someone their age with a spare, dust-collecting Wii or Gamecube (a Wii without fancy controllers) that they can borrow if they want to play Nintendo games and 2. this segment of the population is looking for games they can spend a lot of time mastering as they socialize and compete with their friends from school and those met online.


Group 3, the family will likely be debating whether to purchase a Wii or a 360/PS3 depending on the age of the children involved. The Wii will provide younger children and often parents with hours of entertainment as Wii games are often fun to watch people playing. The 360/PS3 system however will provide older children a safe way to interact with their peers and to be part of the gaming culture as well as provide an entertainment system for their household (movie and music player). So the parents will have to weigh the option of what would best serve their family and then decide on which system.

This scenario is meant to demonstrate what people mean when they say that the Wii "is not a direct competitor" or "doesn't count". The only dollars being fought over here really are in the family unit. The older couple will either spend their dollars on the Wii or some other non-console entertainment product. The students/bachelors are "hardcore" gamers so the Wii isn't much of a consideration.

So its fine to debate all-kinds of market factors when considering who's winning this "competition" but it is important to define the field of play:

1. the sale of electronic entertainment devices under $500 (here I believe the iPod is actually winning...)
2. the hearts of the gaming community
3. the optimization of a profitable gaming-based company (or department in the case of Sony and Microsoft)

Personally I place emphasis on the second category as I consider myself to be a "hardcore" gamer.
Hardcore gamers, in my definition, are individuals seeking to be part of a community that places value on games which generate entertaining/impressive stories and situations in a fictional setting brought about in the most realistic way allowed by technology. "Repackaging" of old games often matters little to hardcore gamers as long as graphics are improved to help achieve the realism component of the above-stated value. If we want to be critical, every game can be broken down to a sequence of buttons that must be pressed in the right order at the right time to complete the objective of a setting which defines "winning" at the game. In that sense every game is a repackaged old game, but when we make generalizations like this we diminish the subtle differences in games that contribute to the evolution of the game species as a whole.

Thoughts?

[rlplaisted]

No offense, but Microsoft and Sony don't care about you. They want to make money and they mistakingly thought that building a powerful hardcore gaming console with media capabilities would make the most money. So far they have been wrong, and I'm betting if they had to do it all over again they would completely rethink their approach.

Remember, the argument is whether Wii is a direct competitor, not whether it appeals to the same people or has the same capabilities. Microsoft and Sony tried to please everybody including hardcore gamers and families with your children. They failed to win over anybody EXCEPT the hardcore gamers. So you may rightfully say they don't compete with hardcore gamers but that's not the point. The board of directors don't care about anything other than making a lot of money, and they are sorely dissapointed with the performance of Xbox 360 and PS3 right now. That's the point of this argument.

[irfwaheed]

Very interesting analysis!! And as a "hardcore" gamer on a PS3, I completely agree that the "hearts of the gaming community" is what should be used to weigh the differences. How many people lie in each of the 3 categories could tell us the sales count of of the 3 consoles, but the sales count of the consoles within the second category could tell us which console is the real winner!!!

[toumei64]

This is all very simple. Nintendo saw an untapped market with major potential and put their heads together on how to draw them in. They don't sell "Nintendo"s anymore, they sell "Wii"s. Instead of moving closer and closer to a PC or media center like the others did, they moved farther away.

Innovation is key.

"The Wii is a direct competitor to the other consoles because it's vying for the same spending dollars that Microsoft and Sony are."

This is only partially correct in that Microsoft and Sony are competing with Nintendo in the the casual gaming market. For serious or hardcore gamers, the Wii is not a viable option - period. Does this diminish the Wii? No - the Wii is a fantastic console for casual and party gaming. Nintendo is being very smart in targeting casual gamers or consumers who normally wouldn't play games.

"I'm left wondering if Nintendo can push its competitors into the realm of irrelevance with a huge showing in December"

This is just flamebait and you know it. Microsoft and Sony will always be relevant as long as a serious gaming demographic exists. One which, while not having the numbers of casual gamers or first time gamers, will continue to grow as electronic gaming continues to become embedded in our culture. If anything, the Wii will actually help Microsoft and Sony sell consoles (though not necessarily the current generation of consoles) by acting as a gateway drug of sorts to first time gamers who normally would have never gamed before and who after playing the Wii might decide to try something a little more serious and challenging.

[rlplaisted]

No offense, but Microsoft and Sony don't care about you. They want to make money and they mistakingly thought that building a powerful hardcore gaming console with media capabilities would make the most money. So far they have been wrong, and I'm betting if they had to do it all over again they would completely rethink their approach.

Remember, the argument is whether Wii is a direct competitor, not whether it appeals to the same people or has the same capabilities. Microsoft and Sony tried to please everybody including hardcore gamers and families with your children. They failed to win over anybody EXCEPT the hardcore gamers. So you may rightfully say they don't compete with hardcore gamers but that's not the point. The board of directors don't care about anything other than making a lot of money, and they are sorely dissapointed with the performance of Xbox 360 and PS3 right now. That's the point of this argument.

[irfwaheed]

Can someone give me the current COST figures of a Wii, an Xbox and a PS3??? Looks like some analysis needs to be done!! :-)