Comments on: PlayStation boss: Sony rules in consoles. Say what?

Sony Computer Entertainment's President Kaz Hirai says the PlayStation 3 is the top console. The numbers say otherwise.

[Lenamn_99]

Sony is the leader on the technolgy side. HD gaming on WII or Xbox? NO. End of story.

[grilledcharlie]

Since when does XBOX 360 not have HD gaming? Fanboys of any console are incredibly lame.

[Redsand7]

The interesting thing here is that on total systems sold - Nintendo (GBA/DS/Wii) & Sony (PSP/PS2/PS3) are virtually tied at over 200M units worldwide. If you take the handhelds out of the mix, that number (Wiis vs. PS2/PS3) drastically slides in Sony's favor - 35M vs. 180M - perhaps this is what he was referring to?

While I would argue that in terms of Consoles, Sony did a great job with the PS1 and PS2 in wrestling away the proverbial crown from Nintendo. I think that the Wii has slid the balance to a more even keel in terms of perception, and agree with Matt Hickey - when Sony passes Microsoft (and it looks like there is a good chance this year that they could) and takes over number two, I would lean towards Sony ruling the roost again.

And before everyone jumps all over this, the sales numbers are from several sites on the web, and I am a PS3 owner, so no Sony bashing just cause.

[mirimiri77]

you are right man

[grilledcharlie]

@Redsand7
"when Sony passes Microsoft (and it looks like there is a good chance this year that they could) and takes over number two, I would lean towards Sony ruling the roost again."
What are you basing this on? All the numbers prove you wrong. PS3 sales didn't even jump during the holliday season. I mean, I bought one for Killzone 2, but c'mon though. You have to base your claims on something.
By the way. How are you enjoying playing GTA4 The Lost and Damned? Oops...sorry. I forgot it was for XBOX 360 only.

[jamirand]

Hi there...at first I was in the mind set that the Wii was not a direct competitor with XBox360 n PS3 (them Altimas!!! only if they weren't around, I could have bought that AudiR8.)
But ok stop the sarcasm and lets give the benefit of the doubt to those that argue that if the Wii was not around then people would have bought either a PS3 or Xbox ( which I know is way more accessible than buying a R8)..... so if we think about the possible small percentage of market share the big two consoles are loosing to the Wii ...then they are not doing as bas as it sounds.

So if we remotely consider the Wii as a competitor then the number I want to see is the profit per unit Nintendo is making agains Microsoft and Sony.

Lets try to use the numbers that we have , If you take total units sold - published here. Wii sold approx 17 million versus 12 million Xbox and 7 million PS3 in the US.
What is the average price of the Wii? $250 Xbox I would say $350 and Ps3 $450. so if you do the math actually with less units sold than nintendo microsoft has made fairly the same amount of money. Ps3 is a bit behind but possibly the average unit price might be higher with those 80gb models. Profit Profit Profit....where are those numbers? Why every article talking about console wars talks about unit sold....I know, I know they say "Companies make their money selling more games so the more households the better "....well, I bet you a lot of Wii owners do not have more that 2 or 3 titles (because the rest of wii games out there are just plain mediocre and dull according to many videogame experts.) and Ps3 and Xbox gamerz can't come up with enough money to keep up with the good titles being offered nowadays (CODs, Gears, GOW, KillZ2, R2 and more.) Now PC its a killer.

[JAARON311]

The main problem with your logic is this:

Nintendo is making a good profit on every system sold. They have already surpassed their R&D and setup costs and are now in the profit realm.

Sony is losing money on every PS3 sold right now. Their manufacturing costs are more than the price of their systems i.e. no profit for Sony on the PS3 yet.

I am not sure about how the XBOX360 is fairing in the same department.

I do agree though, showing this type of profit margin for each system might help clear the air a bit. It will at least show another aspect of how delusional Kaz Hirai is.

[Zoobie]

To add to JAARON311's comment:

The second problem with your logic is only using US sales. It's a global market--you can't dismiss Europe and Asia as the Wii and PS3 both have stronger sales than Xbox in those regions.

The third problem with your logic is using attach rates as a proxy for software profits (yes, Xbox owners buy more games each--but the Wii pushes more units at retail). A video game expert I'm sure will tell you that Petz is ridiculous--but to the little girls playing it, well, they disagree. And never underestimate the spending power of pre-teen girls...

[imotionsrt4]

As it's been said before, there was no mention of the PS3, or PS3 only contributing to Sony being a "leader"

PS3 against 360 and Wii sales, is one thing, and of course Sony is losing that battle.

But add in PS2's and PSP's then it's a whole different set of numbers.

[grilledcharlie]

Well, why don't we also add Gameboy to the mix too? What about original XBOX? Let's even throw N64 in there too. To top it all off, why don't' we also add every pc with Microsoft Windows?
Every generation of consoles has been compared to it's current competitor in the market. Super Nintendo was compared to Sega Genesis. N64 was compared to PS1 and Sega Saturn. PS2 was compared to XBOX, Sega Dreamcast, and Nintendo Gamecube. Now it is only fair to compare the Wii to PS3 and XBOX 360, and not a combination of this and the last generation's consoles.

[MSSlayer]

"Aren't those the indicators people look to when considering leadership? "

No thinking person does. Then again is there such a thing as a thinking console buyer?

PS3 is technologically superior to anything out there. The Cell processor is truly a step forward.

Doesn't technology count in technology anymore?

Sales is meaningless, unless you want to admit that Hanna Montana and the Jonas Brothers truly are the most talented singers on the planet today.

[PassingCanadian]

The Xbox360 was created to rival the PS2, PS3 graphics are not even at half of what it is capable of. Why give the best right away when half will do? Also its hard to purchase blu-ray readers for less then a PS3 costs and it is included. I think that not enough people know about the longtivity of the system so they choose the wii for the interactive games and xbox for the game titles. They can only blame their failure on marketing.

[RSpreitzer]

Yeah, 3 x 3.2 GHz processors in the 360 vs the 0.2 GHz processor found in the PS2. A direct competitor. Wake up!

[grilledcharlie]

PS3 graphics are at half of their capability because the PS3 is hard as hell to program games for. It's not like they are saving the good games for the right time.
Also, when was the last time you checked out bluray player prices? You can easily find budget players for under $200, and you can find quality players for under $300. Sony can blame their poor sales on price alone. They tried to boost bluray by disguising bluray players as game consoles, and now its hurting them.

[atomD21]

Sony has been plagued with hubris for a long time now. Two gens with no real competition will do that to a company. Anyway, as for the arguement of value, Sony keeps stripping (hardware) features out of the thing and just upping the HD size. That doesn't scream value to me. I want to eventually get one, but I'm going to hit ebay for a 60GB launch console so I can have the BC that I want. And as far as raw power goes, they put quite a bit of cutting edge tech in that box, but on average, the games don't show it, and the last time I checked tech specs aren't very fun to play. In the end, the consumers decide who "wins" the system war with what they buy. Right now, Sony isn't providing a compelling reason for the majority of consumers to buy a PS3, and until they do, the Wii and 360 will keep leading in sales.

[skythra]

This goes along side their comment that "The ps3 is intentionally hard to program for so that it can artificially impose restrictions on the early games to make sure the console can have potential in later years"

Ive got a better strategy: make a console - make it easy to program - get every game maker to make games with it - and in 2-3 years do it all over again and not in 10.

[mirimiri77]

wow you are such a smart guy...so you suggest the console maker should make consoles every 3 years?did you know it cost billions to make and establish a new console.try to learn any music instrument ,it will impruve your intelligence,,,oops sorry i meant it could improove your stupidity

[richard993]

Steve Balmer and Kaz appear to have a lot in common. Balmer insisted that Vista was an incredible success, over and over again... despite the huge backlash from customers and businesses, and various research papers showing evidence against the self proclaimed "success" (including research from Gartner). I suppose if success is measured by how happy customers are with their purchase, I must admit that there are two very significant differences... I am very happy with my PS3, but extremely disappointed with Vista... and with the PS3 I had a choice, but with Vista I didn't.

[Some_One_Plays]

Just letting everyone know sales don't equal quality. If game sales hit a million it doesn?t mean it?s quality just look at Halo 3. When I bought into what everyone was saying, was the day I realized the industry was still bias now when I look at Killzone 2 compared to Halo 3, Sony meets quality.

[RabbitFly]

Now I am gonna try not to come off as a fanboy, but I don't understand all you people. Including the original article they seem to hang up on one thing. Sales. Have you even considered that was not what he was talking about? I am no fan of Hirai myself, but I am pretty sure he knows they are not selling enough ps3s right now. I mean I am sure the stockholders are beating him up over it.

I mean when did the word "leader" become the word for "best selling" ?

I can see the quote as being slightly optimistic and probably wrong, but it's not without foundation.
My guess is he means they are the actual leader of the market, as in the one that everyone is following. Depending on how you look at this it can go both ways, and I don't really agree either way as the current generation is still trying to root itself fully. This is probably also why he mentions nintendo as they clearly choose to go their own way. However lets take a closer look at his statement.

Sony entered the console market during the fifth generation in 1994 with the original Playstation (nicknamed PSX) and was the first console of it's generation, also the first console to feature 100% 3d graphics (I am not entirely sure where sega saturn stands on this, and I would like to look past that anyways cause whoever bought that should have taken a second look at the controller and dismissed the system instantly). Which it would be the only console to offer until the relase of the dreamcast 4 years later (I am expecting people to go screaming N64 now, as it came out 2 years after the PSX and was a 64 bit system, however the N64 never featured 100% 3d graphics. All the games on the N64 were full of 2D. No idea why, but thats how it is). Featuring the cheapest price and the most variety in games it quickly became the "best selling" console of it's generation. Sony of course saw this as a success and started working on their followup the playstation 2. Sega being in bad shape after the huge failure that was the saturn were actually the first into the 6th generation, with the dreamcast. This did not work out as planned as the price of the dreamcast was hard to justify with their lack of big titles.
In 1999, 1 year later than the dreamcast the ps2 came and conquered all. The PS2 were the only contender in the sixth generation console race for 2 years, and by the time nintendo joined the market in 2001 with the gamecube Sony had such a hold on the market that Nintendo came into big financial problems. At some point Microsoft decided they wanted to be a part of the console market as well, this decision to me was kinda weird. For one microsoft was considered and still is today (by themselves as well might I add) a software company. However their first entry into the market was a bit late and the xbox would be considered a far behind second for the entire generation and today by many it would be considered a failure. However with Microsofts current success one might argue that as I would. The xbox also launched some exclusive IPs that would turn into some of the biggest franchises in gaming.

As for the 7th Generation it is true that microsoft was the first on the market, but it was also clearly a move made to counter Sony's upcoming PS3, and as we all know there are x360s suffering for the hasty production cycle even today. In addition to this the PS3 would see a near year long delay due to production difficulties. Nintendo being in a bad shape after the sixth generation had to do something drastic and went in a different direction. Something which right now is paying off in a big way.

So as we can see ever since the 5th generation of consoles Sony has been leading the herd. Looking at the 7th generation (this generation) everything is a bit up in the air however. X360 was the first console of this generation, Wii is the current best selling console of this generation, and the PS3 is the most advanced console of this generation.
Also to the people that keep claiming the wii is a contender. Please note a few

things. People that buy Wii's are not gamers, I am sure a few of you Wii owners are gamers as well, but considering the piece of the pie you represent I respectfully ask you to keep quiet. This is further proven by the extremely low attach rate the Wii is having. Looking at hardware the Wii would be considered a 6th generation console. And third the motion sensing is only a gimmick, a well implemented gimmick sure, but also and extremely limiting gimmick.

Final Words. I am not sure if you should consider this post as fanboyish or not, but one thing is sure and that is that right now the 360 is the best console to buy. It has the most games and arguably the best online service, people keep claiming price, however that doesn't mean Sony is not allowed to say they are the a leading force within the industry, as they clearly have been for almost 15 years. I can agree that Hirai did some bad choice of words, but then again isn't he japanese?

[juuken2]

And the misinterpretation begins. People seem to forget that Sony dominated two generations of gaming. What the hell did you expect the man to say? That we're sore loser, we're in third place and ee suck becaude Microsoft is slaughtering us?

When Microsoft PR's talk, they make sense. When Sony PR's talk, they're delusional. Seriously, lol?

[juuken2]

That we're sore losers, we're in third place and we suck because Microsoft is slaughtering us?

Sorry for the mistakes.

[mirimiri77]

well, nature should be sorry for making the mistake of bringing you into this life

[grilledcharlie]

Haha,,,good one.

[womble62]

Does this guy really know what he is talking about? OK fair enough, the PS3 is behind by a huge distance right now, but there is no possible way microsoft are making any profit. since the release of the Xbox 360 they have spent $16 billion on the xbox division. there is no possible way they will ever make that money back. and you know how far thats got them? 7 million sales ahead of the PS3. and they had a years head start. that is a pathetic amount of sales. and also Playstation is easily the leading brand in video game consoles. the original Playstation was a huge success and when it comes to the PS2. Well that was huge. with over 140 million sales. the original xbox went out of production with a final install base of 24 million. what you people dont seem to realise is playstation is the most trusted console brand out there. Also anyone who thinks the PS3 will be put out of production because of manufacturing costs, your idiots. what do you think Sony have done with all the PS1 and PS2 money, burnt it? they have plenty of money to fall back on. sony can ride out the current economical situation with ease. this playsation will be a big enough success for sony to make a new one. playstation is easily Sony's biggest brand. they wont let go of it because of one bad generation. there will be a playstation4 and they will have learned from there mistakes this time around. Its not favouritism towards sony its just common sense. microsoft have just laid off 5000 people, another 1400 will go this week, and yet they say they are not in trouble. ********!! Anyway, everyone have a nice day. goodbye.

[mirimiri77]

you said they wont let go because of one bad generation?maybe might be for you bad generation,not for others.ihave a ps3 and im happy .

[womble62]

they are far from suffering. its sony. the biggest electronics company in the world. they may have just lost 30 billion yen but that is pennies. Playstation division is sonys biggest brand they wont let it go. it wont shut down, any one who believes that has been livinng under a rock for the past 19 years. yes i mean you! microsoft are suffering. $16 billion dollars on the xbox division since 2005. you really think they'll make that back? idiot. microsoft are constantly lying through their teeth about every product they make. face microsoft make overpriced ****. oh and the games thing. go look at this years ps3 line up and then name me something amazing on xbox. ps3 has got killzone 2 (which i was a beta tester for), uncharted 2, god of war III, Heavy rain, Infamous, Ratchet and clank (ted price slipped up about it). ive only named the ones that are guaranteed to be good because i dont know **** about the others. whats xbox got? halo wars, halo ODST (expansion but there tryna say its a whole new game just cos its on a disc), and thats it. alan wake and splinter cell conviction have hardly any information at the moment so no one can say how good they will be. xbox has nothing this year. face it. save up get a PS3 and be happy.

[BrianC6234]

I agree with Sony. All the other consoles are crap. PS3 is #1.

[Zoobie]

It will be interesting to see what happens when the price finally comes down. With 140 million PS2s sold, there are a lot of people out there who haven't upgraded, yet. I don't know the percent, but a lot of the PS2 sales occurred when the system hit $149. As one sitting on the sidelines waiting for the prices to drop, here's where I stand (and in the interest of full disclosure--I do have a Wii and PS2 currently in use):
- 360 currently has a more complete games library
- PS3 has better build quality and blu-ray
- Cost is the same. I know the 360 is cheaper in the box, but once you add in the wifi adapter, it seems to me price is pretty identical. The arcade version is silly--wired controllers, no hard drive--I won't consider it.

At the end of the day, because of build quality, blu-ray, and the fact that PS3 has enough games to keep me happy, I will most likely buy that system when I decide the price is right.

Any thoughts from others out there who haven't jumped up, yet?