Support NeoGAF

[EventHorizon]

The PS4 was a solid hand played well, I stated as such. But it has so easily won the generation, not only because of its own merits, but because both competitors stumbled hard. Nintendo and MS screwed up so badly I'm confident Sony would have won even if they didn't do as well themselves.

Microsoft only "screwed up so badly" in relation to Sony. The XB1 critiques were always relative to the PS4. If it wasn't for the PS4 being such a good value, the XB1 could have easily have won this generation. The PS4's success was no default position either. For example they decided not to included the camera to keep the price low. Seeing as how all three major console makers have had significant stumbles, it's safe to assume that making a well received new console is not a given.

 

[D.Lo]

Microsoft only "screwed up so badly" in relation to Sony. The XB1 critiques were always relative to the PS4. If it wasn't for the PS4 being such a good value, the XB1 could have easily have won this generation. The PS4's success was no default position either. For example they decided not to included the camera to keep the price low. Seeing as how all three major console makers have had significant stumbles, it's safe to assume that making a well received new console is not a given.

Fair call to a certain extent. But I wouldn't let MS off the hook on them being only a relative stumble. The stink of the no used game sales was IMO the thing that sunk MS for at least 2-3 years. They 'adjusted strategy' extremely rapidly there too, but it took a long time for that to filter through, and in the meantime they were already 20 million behind.

And the Wii U (and later period Wii for that matter) of course was so bad a stumble as to essentially be a market near-exit, completely removing Nintendo as an option for almost everyone, which opened up the availability of all those consumers to be sold on a competitor.

 

[EventHorizon]

Fair call to a certain extent. But I wouldn't let MS off the hook on them being only a relative stumble. The stink of the no used game sales was IMO the thing that sunk MS for at least 2-3 years. They 'adjusted strategy' extremely rapidly there too, but it took a long time for that to filter through, and in the meantime they were already 20 million behind.

And the Wii U (and later period Wii for that matter) of course was so bad a stumble as to essentially be a market near-exit, completely removing Nintendo as an option for almost everyone, which opened up the availability of all those consumers to be sold on a competitor.

The no used game thing would have been just like charging for online multiplayer and microtransactions. It would have been something players bitched about, but then rapidly accepted as normal if they had no choice.

One thing I have to correct myself with is that worldwide I do think Sony had a structural advantage over Microsoft. The XB1 could have been competitive worldwide, but it would have required Microsoft to bring its A game. On the other hand, in the US I think it was reversed with Microsoft leading and Sony having to compete hard to win...which they did.

 

[MrCookiepants]

The PS4 was a solid hand played well, I stated as such. But it has so easily won the generation, not only because of its own merits, but because both competitors stumbled hard. Nintendo and MS screwed up so badly I'm confident Sony would have won even if they didn't do as well themselves.

It all comes back to the PS3 in the end. If Sony hadn't fucked that up, Microsoft would not have had any marketshare in the first place.

 

[samar11]

Ever since Playstaion brand came into the market they've been on top, except for ps3 and that was because of such a huge fuck up. They still managed to sell 85+ million consoles which is amazing..

PS4 didn't get lucky because their competitors fucked up, its just continuing a trend of PS dominating the market.

 

[ArtHands]

Might as well stop bothering with Vita software sales now.

3DS and Vita:
Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadow of Valentia
Pokemon Sun
Pokemon Moon
Super Mario Maker
Mario Kart 7
Mario Sports Superstars
Super Smash Bros.
Poochy and Yoshi’s Wooly World
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D
Super Mario 3D Land

 

[Turrican3]

PSVR could be a surrogate for Move, and Xbox One X could be a surrogate for Kinect. We also have the iterative models already in market that should offset some of that comp as well.

(I apologize in advance if I'm missing the point, please understand I'm not a native speaker)

Unless some major U-turn happens I don't think PSVR can become as successful (?) as Move, and XB1 X to me seems a decently unpredictable thing.

Anyway, I was trying to make a different point, which was: if we exclude Wii due to the demographics, how will we read X360 data after Kinect becomes available? In other words, how do we split "core" and "casual/mainstream" sales?

And if we decide NOT to split them (I guess that can only be approximated/inferred, maybe from sales of more casual-oriented titles?), shouldn't that mean the Wii has a place in those charts as well, considering its lineup also included so-called traditional titles?

tl;dr I'm still convinced it's an arbitrary exclusion, and that having PS4/XB1 tracking better than PS360 is hardly a huge achievement thanks to the utter disaster that was the PS3 launch, and anyway things are likely to appear less rose-tinted as soon as data, launch aligned, will include 360 with Kinect.

No one's stopping you from making your own charts.
[...]
If the story changes, the comparisons change. It's not some huge conspiracy.

Well, to make a chart in the first place I would need data I don't have access to.

Anyway, I don't think I said or even implied there's a conspiracy going on.
I just think - as I said above - it is both a little spin and a somewhat baffling way to expose data, but I believe (hope?) there's no malice involved.

 

[Celine]

Might as well stop bothering with Vita software sales now.

They aren't bothering with Vita, that's why the two are put together.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

When it come to this gen Sony really bring there A game for everything .
Last gen there were unfocused and made to many mistakes .
Just look at there marketing this gen comapre to last one the hype was much higher.
Using nostalgia earlier on was a great move and they went back to there PS1\PS2 ways .

 

[test_account]

Might as well stop bothering with Vita software sales now.

Vita is still getting new releases, thats why its still being tracked.

 

[LordRaptor]

Vita something like 5-7 million since PS4 launch (guess)

I really don't think thats true.

 

[Fiendcode]

Vita is still getting new releases, thats why its still being tracked.

Wii U, PS3, 360 and even Wii are still getting new releases too. They aren't getting top tens though.

 

[test_account]

Wii U, PS3, 360 and even Wii are still getting new releases too. They aren't getting top tens though.

I'm not sure if Wii still gets new releases, but i exepect Just Dance 2018 on Wii to get tracked by the NPD too. Unless the game is not canceled of course.

 

[MatPiscatella]

I'm not sure if Wii still gets new releases, but i exepect Just Dance 2018 on Wii to get tracked by the NPD too. Unless the game is not canceled of course.

We still track OUYA hardware and PSX software, of course it's tracked. Doesn't mean we're going to make public top 10 charts for them.

We call the category that contains 3DS and Vita sales "Portable". It's not labeled "3DS and Vita" in our charts because the chart would also include NDS, PSP, GBA, etc.

if we exclude Wii due to the demographics

That's not the reason I would make a chart without the Wii.

how do we split "core" and "casual/mainstream" sales?

You can't.

And if we decide NOT to split them, shouldn't that mean the Wii has a place in those charts as well, considering its lineup also included so-called traditional titles?

If one wants to compare a data set with Wii, then yes. If one wants to compare a data set without Wii, then no. You're making an argument about data comparisons being valid or invalid based on qualitative factors or the motivations of the person making the comparison. Data is data. Full data set comparisons have a place, sub segment data comparisons have a place. It is somewhat ridiculous to argue that one comparison simply should not exist.

tl;dr I'm still convinced it's an arbitrary exclusion

You think the exclusion is based by randomness or personal whim? You can see no way possible where a comparison such as this could be interesting/useful? Arbitrary? Comparing the sales of 2 devices in a cycle to the sales of 2 devices from the same manufacturers in a past cycle is just some contrived comparison made from the ether? Really?

I just think - as I said above - it is both a little spin and a somewhat baffling way to expose data, but I believe (hope?) there's no malice involved.

"Baffling"? What is baffling is saying that certain comparisons should never be made, and that there's only ONE way to look at a data set, with all other comparables at a more detailed level being "arbitrary" and "spin".

If you want to argue the conclusions from the comparison, great. If you want to argue the factors that caused the results, fine. If you want to argue that comparing particular data points should not happen at all? I strongly disagree, and completely reject your position.

 

[Hero]

We still track OUYA hardware and PSX software, of course it's tracked. Doesn't mean we're going to make public top 10 charts for them.

We call the category that contains 3DS and Vita sales "Portable". It's not labeled "3DS and Vita" in our charts because the chart would also include NDS, PSP, GBA, etc.

Hey Mat, with the announcement of the SNES Classic yesterday, do you//NPD have any predictions and/or thoughts on it?

 

[MatPiscatella]

Hey Mat, with the announcement of the SNES Classic yesterday, do you//NPD have any predictions and/or thoughts on it?

Hi! First, excitement. Second, wondering how I'll find one. Third, I expect demand to be even hotter for this than the NES Classic. The time limited nature of distribution will make this a white hot item, I expect people to be calling stores and waiting in lines for doors to open when shipments arrive all through the holiday period. I also expect production will determine sales, so I don't have a real forecast for it.

Between the Switch and the SNES Classic, Nintendo is going to have one heck of a holiday. Don't have to be an analyst to predict this though!

Sorry. The followon replies to yours about "this statement should be at the beginning of all sales threads" and the like significantly irked me, and I went off on how they were interpreting your statement instead of how your statement read.

Ahhhh, okay cool.

but I want to have an idea of if the series I like will be around in another 10-20 years

Okay, this is a fun thing to think about. First, let's check out the top 10 $ games from 10 and 20 years ago...

2007 - Guitar Hero 3, Halo 3, Madden, Guitar Hero 2, COD4, Wii Play, Rock Band, Assassin's Creed, Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Party 8

1997 - Mario Kart 64, Super Mario 64, Star Fox, Goldeneye007, Diddy Kong Racing, Star Wars Shadow of Empire, Final Fantasy VII, Turok, Madden NFL 98, Cruisin USA

So, probably, in 10-20 years 3D Mario, Mario Kart, Football and Final Fantasy and Star Wars will still be things.

But something like 3D Mario could come and go. It could be big, take some years off (like it has between SMG2 and Odyssey) but then come back big. DOOM and Wolf went away for a long while as sales of the games for those franchises fell quite low. But now they're both back in big ways.

I guess my point is that trying to predict what might come in the future based on sales of iterations isn't going to be very reliable. Franchises and games need strong creative artistic visions (in most cases) and a once dormant franchise can be resurrected if the right talented people can bring it to life (like Monolith with the Middle Earth series, for example).

Heck man, I remember working at Warner before the launch of Batman: Arkham Asylum. The expectations for that game were very low, because all recent superhero games had performed terribly. But Rocksteady made a genre defining, transformative experience that continues to have influence today (the new Spider-Man game, for example, probably doesn't happen unless Arkham showed the potential of what superhero games could be and sell).

I get what you're saying, but so much of what happens on the sales charts is driven by artists and the creators. And you just can't forecast that. If a true visionary gets hold of an IP that everyone else has given up on the potential still exists for a top 10 selling game.

It's just such an inexact science.

 

[Majmun]

.


https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/879364578257358848

Thanks!! <3

Wii, Ps2 and Ps4 on another level.

 

[Hero]

Hi! First, excitement. Second, wondering how I'll find one. Third, I expect demand to be even hotter for this than the NES Classic. The time limited nature of distribution will make this a white hot item, I expect people to be calling stores and waiting in lines for doors to open when shipments arrive all through the holiday period. I also expect production will determine sales, so I don't have a real forecast for it.

Between the Switch and the SNES Classic, Nintendo is going to have one heck of a holiday. Don't have to be an analyst to predict this though!

Totally agree with all three points you made. I thought the NES Classic was cool but the SNES Classic is pretty much my childhood in mini form factor.

Will NPD continue to classify SNES Classic as a 'console' for tracking purposes (such as the other month when NES Classic was #2 for the month)?

And yeah, hopefully Nintendo can satisfy a good portion of demand for both Switch and SNES Classic.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Ever since Playstaion brand came into the market they've been on top, except for ps3 and that was because of such a huge fuck up. They still managed to sell 85+ million consoles which is amazing..

Sony has been on top all the time, except when they weren't.

 

[LordRaptor]

Sony has been on top all the time, except when they weren't.

PS1,2 and 4 only, no handhelds, final destination

 

[MatPiscatella]

Will NPD continue to classify SNES Classic as a 'console' for tracking purposes

Yep, fits in the "Plug n Play" segment, as a console.

 

[Hero]

Yep, fits in the "Plug n Play" segment, as a console.

Holiday months will definitely be interesting with all the new hardware! Thanks, as always!

 

[Turrican3]

You're making an argument about data comparisons being valid or invalid based on qualitative factors or the motivations of the person making the comparison. Data is data. Full data set comparisons have a place, sub segment data comparisons have a place. It is somewhat ridiculous to argue that one comparison simply should not exist.

I'm just pointing out what I see as a self contradiction.

Wii might be excluded from certain comparisons because it was an outlier success or because it wasn't part of the core gamer segment?

Fine, let's say I understand that.
But then, by the same logic, we have a problem with the post-Kinect X360 sales: I think we can all agree that Kinect had a significant impact on the X360 late lifecycle, yet by your own admission we can't really split core and mainstream sales.

So, how do we treat/interpret those late X360 data? Can we compare them to PS3 and PS4? What about the Wii?

 

[MatPiscatella]

So, how do we treat/interpret those late X360 data? Can we compare them to PS3 and PS4? What about the Wii?

Of course you can. You can compare anything to anything, but some comparisons are more interesting/useful/valid than others. I'm not the one saying that views or comparisons should be restricted.

 

[wonderful103]

I'm just pointing out what I see as a self contradiction.

Wii might be excluded from certain comparisons because it was an outlier success or because it wasn't part of the core gamer segment?

Fine, let's say I understand that.
But then, by the same logic, we have a problem with the post-Kinect X360 sales: I think we can all agree that Kinect had a significant impact on the X360 late lifecycle, yet by your own admission we can't really split core and mainstream sales.

So, how do we treat/interpret those late X360 data? Can we compare them to PS3 and PS4? What about the Wii?

A large amount of any successful mainstream console sales would be attributed to "casual", including the PS1, PS2 and to some extent even the PS4. Not just the Wii and DS. Quantifying the amount is impossible. Which is why we shouldn't disclude certain platforms from industry-wide comparisons "just because", in my opinion.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Well, to make a chart in the first place I would need data I don't have access to.

Every bit of the data in the chart is publicly and easily available. Xbox One is the only console you won't be able to get official numbers for.

I really don't think thats true.

Yeah, Vita is more like 4m units since PS4 launch. Though PS3 has also shipped several million and wasn't included in his count.

Sony has been on top all the time, except when they weren't.

It's not just winning by comparison, it's the actual level of their performance. Their worst-selling home console will possibly end up pushing more units than every home console ever released by other companies, except Wii. Before PS1, no home console in history had hit 65m units; every Sony release has passed 85m. Three of them (probably) will pass 100m; Wii is the only non-Sony entry to do so.

 

[Turrican3]

Every bit of the data in the chart is publicly and easily available. Xbox One is the only console you won't be able to get official numbers for.

Huh?
Hasn't NPD data been made private for a while already?! I thought we just got leaks nowadays.

 

[MatPiscatella]

Oh nevermind.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Huh?
Hasn't NPD data been made private for a while already?! I thought we just got leaks nowadays.

The charts in question are not NPD sell-through, they're worldwide sold-in numbers (i.e. shipments). Those are almost all available as part of the public financial disclosures of the platform holders. Microsoft did quit reporting units for Xbox One a while ago, but gaps for other machines have usually been transient.

 

[hanspampel]

Okay, this is a fun thing to think about. First, let's check out the top 10 $ games from 10 and 20 years ago...

2007 - Guitar Hero 3, Halo 3, Madden, Guitar Hero 2, COD4, Wii Play, Rock Band, Assassin's Creed, Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Party 8

1997 - Mario Kart 64, Super Mario 64, Star Fox, Goldeneye007, Diddy Kong Racing, Star Wars Shadow of Empire, Final Fantasy VII, Turok, Madden NFL 98, Cruisin USA

So, probably, in 10-20 years 3D Mario, Mario Kart, Football and Final Fantasy and Star Wars will still be things.

But something like 3D Mario could come and go. It could be big, take some years off (like it has between SMG2 and Odyssey) but then come back big. DOOM and Wolf went away for a long while as sales of the games for those franchises fell quite low. But now they're both back in big ways.

i see a pattern here
music / party games are dead
the rest is still very relevant today

 

[LiquidSolid]

When you can't argue a case, make up an argument and argue against that I guess.

I stated the PS4 WON by default. NOT that it was successful by default.

Winning is always relative. Winning is not necessarily the same thing as success. Many have gone to great lengths in the thread to define the 360 as successful, despite it not winning the worldwide race last gen. Many non-winning consoles can accurately be called successes (Mega Drive, N64, 360, PSP).

The PS4 was a solid hand played well, I stated as such. But it has so easily won the generation, not only because of its own merits, but because both competitors stumbled hard. Nintendo and MS screwed up so badly I'm confident Sony would have won even if they didn't do as well themselves.

When you say something dumb, move the goalposts and accuse the people calling you out of making things up.

Come the fuck on. Everything preceding the statement was all about downplaying the PS4's success, you even said it isn't a 'beast' success (as if there's a definition and it isn't just a silly term people throw around, like the old Nintendo "printing money" gifs). Why would you even say any of that shit if you weren't trying to knock its success?

If Sony hadn't done such a great job with the PS4, it's impossible to say what would've happened. It's not like the Xbone is a Wii U level flop, it's still done decently and kept things fairly close in the US. Personally, I'd guess that the PS4 still would've won this gen but it would've been close and the Xbone would've been well ahead in the US.

As an aside, I'm not sure why you keep saying the PS3 ended up in last place. Personally I prefer saying the 360 and PS3 were virtually tied because we don't have numbers but hasn't it been fairly widely acknowledged that the PS3 ended up passing the 360?

Or I guess if you have no counter argument, insult people instead.

I don't see how you can say I am saying Nintendo is 'da bezt' when I have been ruthless in criticising them on the Wii U and 3DS debacles over multiple years. I've been criticising Nintendo regarding the Wii U and 3DS on here for significantly longer than you have been on neogaf.

Not saying you are one, as I don't know you nor am I going to creep around your post history but that's not really proof of anything. I've always found that the most dedicated fanboys are the ones who end up being most critical of their favourite company, because they're demanding perfection. Just look at the response that came from some Sony fans after Sony's weak E3 conference.

 

[Turrican3]

The charts in question are not NPD sell-through, they're worldwide sold-in numbers (i.e. shipments). Those are almost all available as part of the public financial disclosures of the platform holders. Microsoft did quit reporting units for Xbox One a while ago, but gaps for other machines have usually been transient.

I stand corrected, didn't really look at the actual numbers... *that* should have given me a hint the graph was not about NPD data alone but worldwide instead, sorry.

I believe my point stated before about data being shown in a way that makes PS4 shine in a slightly better way still stands though.

Infact, I think a later tweet by ZhugeEX gave a more complete picture (XB1 still missing but I guess it's due to the reason you mentioned)

 

[jroc74]

As an aside, I'm not sure why you keep saying the PS3 ended up in last place. Personally I prefer saying the 360 and PS3 were virtually tied because we don't have numbers but hasn't it been fairly widely acknowledged that the PS3 ended up passing the 360?

And the numbers might be closer to 90 million, we probably will never know.

Imagine if Sony had done the exact same things MS did when launching the XBO. There is no telling how sales would look today.

Saying MS and Nintendo made it easy for them is one thing. But lets give credit where its due. Like someone said, if it was that easy the Wii U wouldnt discontinued and XBO would have more sales.

I stand corrected, didn't really look at the actual numbers... *that* should have given me a hint the graph was not about NPD data alone but worldwide instead, sorry.

I believe my point stated before about data being shown in a way that makes PS4 shine in a slightly better way still stands though.

Infact, I think a later tweet by ZhugeEX gave a more complete picture (XB1 still missing but I guess it's due to the reason you mentioned)

I still dont get this.

Since this gen started there have been charts that included the Wii.

At one point the PS4 was tracking ahead of the Wii. That didnt last too long but still.

Even glancing at this chart...how is it making PS4 shine in a slightly better way?
Unless you mean charts that dont include the Wii.

I will say one thing, excluding the Wii doesnt show just how bad the Wii U did for Nintendo. I still fail to realize how when 1 company drops the ball its a sign of an unhealthy industry...MS fumbled the start of this gen and even with that the XBO is still doing nice vs the 360.

An unhealthy industry would mean PS4 and XBO selling bad too. Even looking at last gen when Wii software sales started to decline, PS3 and 360 sales either didnt as bad or picked up. What happens with 1 company shouldn't equal the entire industry.

If you mean less AAA games is a bad sign, how even tho revenue might be up. Thats not a bad sign for the industry IMO. Less games might mean a bad sign for us gamers but not the industry.

There was a chart about how only the top 3-4 games generate the most sales. Cant remember where I saw it but it was on these forums. If thats the case I would wanna release the fewest games possible while generating the most sales, revenue.

Like when companies shift to mobile. For them it might be the best thing possible as a company, it doesnt help us as gamers tho looking for AAA games.

 

[Booya_base]

Farpoint is at #16?

A PSVR exclusive? That's unexpected and fairly amazing, isn't it?

Quite frankly, I'm surprised Sony made enough copies for it to ever reach that position! I love Farpoint, but I'm still surprised a PSVR exclusive could get so high.

 

[Turrican3]

Even glancing at this chart...how is it making PS4 shine in a slightly better way?
Unless you mean charts that dont include the Wii.

I read that chart as "you see, PS4 is doing better than almost PS3+360 combined".

So it's not just about including the Wii or not.

If you mean less AAA games is a bad sign, how even tho revenue might be up. Thats not a bad sign for the industry IMO. Less games might mean a bad sign for us gamers but not the industry.

Eh, I don't know.

Less games in the current market scenario also likely means you "spread" the risk across a smaller number of games. Since development costs are definitely not decreasing, I believe that's an issue for the industry as well.

A side effect (that also affect gamers) is that this way publishers are basically forced to go after well-known genres, competition becomes fierce among a few players (and genres obviously) and I'm afraid it becomes relatively easier to lose lots of money.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying... *shrugs*

 

[Liabe Brave]

I read that chart as "you see, PS4 is doing better than almost PS3+360 combined".

But...it is. Adding the Wii to the comparison doesn't change that fact, it just shows that there's a console that launched even faster. Why do you insist on that comparative, but wish to ignore the other information the chart tells us? It seems you're just complaining that reality has a pro-Sony bias.

Which it absolutely does. Other companies have struggled to reach Sony's level of market success in the home, and achieved it only rarely, and fleetingly.

That's the baseline reality. Analysis strives to factorize and metricize that truth, and for that you're right that we'll need to develop all sorts of comparisons, across many devices. But you're incorrect to imply that some of those breakdowns invalidate others. That's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between data and narrative.

 

[test_account]

We still track OUYA hardware and PSX software, of course it's tracked. Doesn't mean we're going to make public top 10 charts for them.

We call the category that contains 3DS and Vita sales "Portable". It's not labeled "3DS and Vita" in our charts because the chart would also include NDS, PSP, GBA, etc.

That makes sense. I just wanted to reply to the guy who said that you (NPD) shouldnt bother with Vita anymore. Cool to see that you're still tracking older systems as well

 

[Turrican3]

But...it is. Adding the Wii to the comparison doesn't change that fact, it just shows that there's a console that launched even faster. Why do you insist on that comparative, but wish to ignore the other information the chart tells us? It seems you're just complaining that reality has a pro-Sony bias.

Why should I complain about reality?
PS4 is the undisputed market leader, I might sound crazy but not *that* crazy to the point I'll question a fact like this.

My point is different and basically revolves around having meaningful comparisons (as I said before, it could be a matter of language issues on my part so I can only restate my apologies if I'm unable to get my message across; I'm also not so crazy to claim I'm an expert in this matter, I'm definitely NOT and I'm just expressing my point of view)

This is a non-exhaustive list of what I believe could be meaningful, non-deceptive comparisons and a brief reason why I believe they make sense:

PS4 vs PS3 (same company, same product line)
PS4 vs X360 (same demographics former market leader)
PS4 vs Wii (market leader comparison)
PS4 vs XB1 (same demographic)
PS4+XB1 vs PS3+X360 (same demographic, but I've already talked about Kinect potential issues)
PS4+XB1+WiiU vs PS3+X360+Wii (generational differences comparison)

Here is a list of comparisons that doesn't make much sense to me:

PS4 vs PS3+X360 (missing XB1 data/estimates alone if we're comparing demographics, missing XB1, WiiU and Wii if the point is proving the whole market is "healthier", whatever that means... I also think this comparison is extremely problematic because it somehow hides both the impact the Wii had on that generation as a whole and, limited to the PS3, the issues caused by the insane launch price)
Wii vs GC+Xbox (market leader vs generation "losers", example already pointed out before by user D.Lo)

Then, there's also the narrative that has been going on for years about downplaying or simply ignoring the Wii for various reasons. That's a totally different issue that we have been discussing a lot on this board and I don't know if it's worth revisiting...

Other companies have struggled to reach Sony's level of market success in the home, and achieved it only rarely, and fleetingly.

Absolutely, it's mindblowing to say the least to think a "failure" like PS3 sold what, 90 million units or so?
(yeah I know that generation was partly a bloodbath, the console needed a major reboot and, generally speaking, investments from Sony but still... as much as I love Nintendo, I don't think they would have ever been able to successfully relaunch a product like that - well, assuming they would launch a 599$ console in the first place, that is)

 

[kyser73]

Anyone posting the 'comeback' narratives or PS3 'turning it around' should look at the chart in Zhuge's tweet...

 

[Turrican3]

Care to explain?

 

[kyser73]

Care to explain?

There's an oft-repeated narrative about the PS3, which is solely driven by US geocentrism, about how the PS3 had a sales comeback because it started poorly in NA and never got close to the 360 in market share.

That aligned sales chart shows very clearly that this wasn't the case.

 

[SMOK3Y]

There's an oft-repeated narrative about the PS3, which is solely driven by US geocentrism, about how the PS3 had a sales comeback because it started poorly in NA and never got close to the 360 in market share.

That aligned sales chart shows very clearly that this wasn't the case.

Yup

 

[Turrican3]

That aligned sales chart shows very clearly that this wasn't the case.

I think this kind of dicussion happens also because it launched significantly later, so it obviously had a gap to recover from the beginning.

 

[AmFreak]

Microsoft only "screwed up so badly" in relation to Sony. The XB1 critiques were always relative to the PS4. If it wasn't for the PS4 being such a good value, the XB1 could have easily have won this generation. The PS4's success was no default position either.

It wasn't such a good value.
It was the first PS sold without loosing money - that is the opposite of "such a good value".
There is a reason they will make more money with the PS4 than with all other PS consoles combined.
And the reason is that the (non-) competition allows them to do that.
This was downright impossible last gen, because the competition actually showed up then.
If a PS4-like console would have come out last gen, a year after the 360 they would have lost.
And Ms did screw up against anyone.
There is no other consoles that looks so much like hybris than the One.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

It wasn't such a good value.
It was the first PS sold without loosing money - that is the opposite of "such a good value".
There is a reason they will make more money with the PS4 than with all other PS consoles combined.
And the reason is that the (non-) competition allows them to do that.
This was downright impossible last gen, because the competition actually showed up then.
If a PS4-like console would have come out last gen, a year after the 360 they would have lost.
And Ms did screw up against anyone.
There is no other consoles that looks so much like hybris than the One.

No they were losing money but got it back with PSN+ or 1 or 2 games bought .
Which was the same way they did for PS1 and PS2 .
It was only with PS3 that losing money early on went out of control .
The reason they will make more money with PS4 than any other consoles is PSN+ and DD .
Also if you think Sony came out with console last gen that was close to the 360 in price and timing they would have lost ?
That is crazy talk , they came out with console way more expensive ,16 plus month later in EU , worst performing games and still sold well vs 360.

 

[Liabe Brave]

This is a non-exhaustive list of what I believe could be meaningful, non-deceptive comparisons....

I must not have been clear. There is no such thing as a meaningless or deceptive comparison of real data. Any effort to disqualify particular data slicings is exactly the same as denying the facts.

Of course we must always be aware of the (researched and supported) contributory reasons for the shape of the data. But that analysis, while important, clearly can't refute or denature the information it's derived from.

PS4 vs PS3 (same company, same product line)
PS4 vs X360 (same demographics former market leader)

Why are these comparisons valid, but a graph combining them is senseless and misleading? This is what I meant about shaping a story from the data. Your suggested limits are actually arbitrary--despite the accompanying stated reasons--because they're explicitly outlawing any other reasons. You can't claim this authority.

PS4+XB1 vs PS3+X360 (same demographic, but I've already talked about Kinect potential issues)

This is exactly the comparison you got...except Xbox One numbers aren't included because Microsoft have not released them. Kinect is completely irrelevant to this comparison, and the fact that you brought it up is very clear evidence of overfitting in an attempt to shape the data.

PS4+XB1+WiiU vs PS3+X360+Wii (generational differences comparison)

You got this comparison too (again, minus the unavailable Xbox One numbers), which should show that no one is trying to obfuscate anything. You're the one being over-selective and disqualifying certain subsets.

PS4 vs PS3+X360 (...I also think this comparison is extremely problematic because it somehow hides both the impact the Wii had on that generation as a whole and, limited to the PS3, the issues caused by the insane launch price)

This statement indicates a thorough misunderstanding of how the display of data functions. Nothing about factors is being hidden here. Indeed, quite the opposite: the graph very much includes the effect of PS3's high initial price, and the 360's supply problems, and Wii's impact, and that of staggered launches, and worldwide economic conditions, and.... What you're looking at is a fully synthetic result. Analysis proceeds from it, not informs its construction.

(I suppose another way to take your comments would be as a Tuftean data density criticism, though I really see no evidence of that in what you've written. If I missed such, though, I'd be more than happy to respond to a detailed version of those ideas!)

 

[Turrican3]

I must not have been clear. There is no such thing as a meaningless or deceptive comparison of real data.

I don't think so.
Would you compare, I don't know, PS3 to NDS sales data?


EDIT

This statement indicates a thorough misunderstanding of how the display of data functions.

It could very well be
So... nevermind, feel free to ignore even this simple reply

 

[Liabe Brave]

I don't think so.
Would you compare, I don't know, PS3 to NDS sales data?

Yes, of course I would. And I'm sure you actually know this already. "The DS was more popular than the PS3." Does that really sound senseless or deceptive to you? I'd wager it instead sounds like a perfectly reasonable statement of fact. Certainly it would be odd to not only disagree, but say that the statement is meaningless.

Note that while I strongly reject your conclusion, what I take as the driving impetus behind your argument can be agreed with. Of course we have to be careful about generalizing from samples. So for example, extending the above truth to "Nintendo hardware is always more popular than Sony hardware" leads us into error.

But my point is, we couldn't make that determination ahead of the search. We only know the universal to be false because we were free to make multiple unfettered comparisons using the data.

Similarly, the current shape of PS4 vs PS360 doesn't justify every possible inference, because that's not the whole population. Switch could cause an inflection point, or One X could, etc. But that doesn't mean the comparison isn't giving us meaning at all.

 

[Turrican3]

First of all, thanks for the replies (sometimes it's not easy to discuss when opinions differs so much)

Back to the topic, it seems to me the actual issue is, indeed, the message I believe each data can convey to the reader.

As you surely have already guessed, while I obviously agree that an hypothetical chart representing PS3 vs NDS would express the fact that the former was less popular than the latter, I would likely challenge the meaningfulness due to various factors like price, target audience, hugely different typical use case, etc.

So maybe the question is: is it really wrong to look at this kind of publicizing data as a way to, for a lack of better wording, present facts in a slightly different way?

This is actually a rhetorical question because I'm sure the answer will be a definite NO... but at the same time, I'm sure we've both read who knows how many times PR where actual, true data has been written to appear better: for example, let's say software ABC increased its sales MoM... but since sales were pitiful in the first place in absolute numbers, you just issue a statement citing a +85%
(again, not sure if my point gets across as intended)

 

[MatPiscatella]

who knows how many times PR where actual, true data has been written to appear better

I'm sure that's never happened. What would a PR group do, use data to make their product, service or company look good?