Same as the Touchpad firesale:
Reasonable price = increased uptake.
I would've bought one of the 60GBs back in the day (if only for the PS2 software emulation), only it was ridiculously overpriced next to the XBox360.
Almost five years since it was first launched, Sony's PlayStation 3 has nearly caught up with Microsoft's Xbox 360 - when it comes to sales figures. Sony's latest financial numbers reveal the company has sold 56m units so far. Microsoft said last month that 57.3m Xbox 360 consoles had been sold. Don't forget that it has been …
My launch console PS3 cost me £425, it's still working great to this day (5 1/2 years later), and has given me 5 1/2 years of awesome and free online gaming. It's bang upto date, supporting the latest standards like 3D, Blu-Ray etc.
I wish more kit as as future-proof as the PS3 is, rather than the shoddy "rush it out for Xmas, worry about the problems later" approach that Microsoft took. I'm guessing almost no launch-day Xbox consoles are still working, and most people will have rebought Xbox slims. Once you add on the hundreds of pounds they will have also wasted in Xbox Live fees, clearly these people are the idiots that fail to understand the term "TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP".
As I don't know anyone with a busted PS3, and I know LOTS of PS3 owners.
Every product will have a failure rate, but there is a HUGE difference between the 0.5% failure rate of the PS3 and the 50-60% failure rate of the Xbox.
How many people do you know that are on their original Xbox? Very few, if any I bet....
lol 50% failure rate? did that come straight out of the book of bollocks or can you back that up?
If you can then myself and all the folk i know with an old xbox who have never had a problem are some of the luckiest people alive, so please back that up, an if its true im off to buy a lotto ticket! :)
Clearly you are not that smart, as a 50% failure rate means there are 20 million consoles than HAVEN'T failed, so it's not that hard to find someone that's on an original console, however 50%(ish) is shocking, and pretty much puts it as the most unreliable console product EVER.
The problem with getting accurate Xbox failure rates is that because Microsoft offered a "give it to use and we will fix it", rather than dealing with a 3rd party, they can cover up the true extent of the problem.
And the FUD that PSN is inferior to Xbox Live is purely that, Microsoft sponsored FUD, they have to send this message, as it costs the price of a game every year, and hundreds of pounds over the generation.
The REALITY is, that PSN offers on-par, and if not better gaming. It's uptime is better than Xbox Live (even with the month outage.. Anyone remember the 20 day Xbox Live Xmas outage, or all the other small outages? Add them all up, an it's considerably worse than PSN), PSN supports dedicated servers for PS3 exclusives, so unlike P2P Xbox Live, where everyone slows to the laggiest connected player, dedicated servers don't suffer from this, PSN content-wise, both are pretty much equal. However PS+ is where it all happens. For the same price as Xbox Live, PS3 owners get hundreds of pounds of games every year, online game saves, automatic updates and more.
Anyone that thinks PSN is inferior to Xbox Live these days, is still living in 2006, or is desperately trying to justify their paid-for service.
Just going to throw one in here, firstly insulting someone directly by saying their not very smart then backing up your judgment with questionable proof is equally not very smart
you see the problem with any survey is how they get there figures, over how long a period of time, what age, locations etc there are simply too many factors that can influence them, not discounting fanboys on a mission who have setup bots to "work" the system im not saying this to defend MS, im saying that surveys are a crap method of finding out data especially when its on the net and over a highly charged subject with polarised views.
Using surveys like that and then ramping up the trend to cover a million sales an coming out with around 50% fail, is a bit daft, using that same logic you could then argue that 1 in 2 units failed, meaning that everyone on the planet who brrought one knows someone who had a unit fail, which isnt the case.
You could argue that the users might not be in your area, well why are they not statistically they have to be, unless of course you dont know anyone with that product which is possible but not defendable, were some countries worse than others? were users of a certain nature more heavly effected? no one knows, an thats my point, we dont know, we never will know and frankly it doesnt matter, it wont make the slightest bit of difference to anyone what happend 5 years ago
Got an original 360 sitting in my bedroom (used as a media centre extender and DVD player really) as well as a slim version for the main box.
Brought an original PS3, hardly used it, thought about flogging it then 2 years in it died. 360's going strong thanks.
I'm enjoying the 3D gaming I get from my 360 thanks. Gears of Wars 3 looks epic on it. Oh, and personally I feel that my £40 a year for the optional Xbox live is far from a waste of money - it provides me with excellent value of money. Very reliable, seems a lot more secure than PSN and the features and content of XBL Vs PSN makes is worth every single penny. PSN content is a joke in comparision.
Each to their own, but I'd back away from those sweeping remarks Mr. Shitpeas.
No, total cost of ownership didn't even come into it, this 'idiot' as you'd call me apparently, bought an xbox because playing online was a paid product and therefore had to work.
Sony can and have pulled the plug on playing online whenever they want.
You can respond by calling me a fanboi if you like, but I don't care, I like my console, you clearly love yours so aren't we both winners?
As I rarely play online (get bored of hyper teens and their pwning ways and inane chatter), and keep getting '3 months free' Xbox Live membership cards with various games and offers, XBL hasn't really cost me anything.
I know but that when I do fancy a blast, I can fire it up and it will work, unlike PSN a while back. Also, safe in the knowledge that my personal data I signed up with isn't on some torrent list.
I only bought the console to play GTA4 to be honest.
I did want a PS3 (with PS2 emulator), but your Sony overlords decided that it was best to price it at a ridiculous price. £425!!!! I've bought cars for less than that! Meanwhile the 360+GTA4 (on release day!) was £199.
Same reason I gave up on PC gaming, I have reached the point in life where I don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of disposable income on what was becoming an occasional hobby.
Its nice to see that they have now too sold many more devices, but for all we know this could still make the whole PS3 business "bad". Meaning; in the beginning Sony invested heavily in the PS3 even up to a point where they sold hardware at a price which may have been steep, sure, but very cheap when you take a look at production and hardware costs.
Considering how they recently dropped the prices a little (granted; the PS3 itself was slightly changed as well, though not very extensively) one has to wonder if reaching this amount also means earning a good quantity of money.
Still... I'm biased, but I own a PS3 for almost 3.5 years now and never looked back at playing on the PC again. I love it; the PS3 is way more than merely a "game console". Heck; my gf even uses it from time to time to video chat with family oversees (who bought the PS3 for their grandchildren :-)).
PS3 + PSEye + Move, its very addictive.
The PS3 launched 16 months after the Xbox360, and at a much higher price and apparently no games (although idiots that claim this have been fooled by comparing a newly launched system with that of one that had been out 16 months. The Xbox also had few games at launch).
It's also worth mentioning of course, the MASSIVE failure rate of the Xbox, compared to the low failure rate of the PS3 means that it certain that the PS3 USERBASE is actually much bigger than that of the Xbox, as a large number of those Xbox sales are replacements for those 30m+ broken/noisy early units. In addition of course, every PS3 is online, thanks to free PSN, yet only 50% of Xbox owners pay for Xbox Live.
I know something like 3 people with a PS3. I know at least 20 with an Xbox 360. And nearly all of these people are in the age range 18-30. The only thing I can think of is that my mates and colleagues are more likely to buy a 360 because we all have them already, and that elsewhere there's bigger groups of PS3 owners instead.
For you, perhaps. But most of my friends have PS3s so when I used to own a 360 I played online by myself. With a PS3 it's different. Just to let y'all know, my 360 had RROD and my lil brother ended up buying the slim one after so I didn't bother, instead I got PS3 so me and my friends could play BF3 online together. Of course I could fix my other brother's PS3 which had the YLOD for £80, but that's too far from my term time address to fetch.
I'd say there's pros and cons of each, and they rate about the same for me.
I can't help but wonder if the availability over the last year of custom firmware has helped drive sales of the hardware.
If you look back, the XBOX 360 was hacked in a matter of months and it was taken for granted that XBOX 360's could have their DVD drives flashed with new firmware to give them 'enhanced' functionality.
Until the last year this has been denied to PS3 owners, so maybe a proportion of these new owners now see the PS3 as offering a better value proposition now the running costs of buying games has been reduced through the benefits of custom firmware?
Could it be that the locking down of consoles and the lack of availability of custom firmware has an inverse effect on sales of hardware i.e. the more secure the platform, the weaker the hardware sales due to higher running costs?
They're both games consoles. They both have their merits. They both have their faults. They both have a few exclusive games, and a hell of a lot of games which are made by third parties for all major platforms.
Get over it.
I got a PS3, because it was "free" (with an overpriced phone contract). The only reason I chose PS3 over X360 is the blu-ray functionality. For playing the likes of FIFA, COD and GTA, the consoles are identical.
Id say from the people I know, XBOX users had 25-30% of serious hardware fault (requiring replacement or repair) within 12 months of new.
I saw that continue with some of my friends on their 3rd XBOX now.
My PS3 died 18 months in and based on my friends I would say about 10% failed within 12 months.
Probably double that for 24 months.
I did buy a replacement PS3 instead of an XBOX as I was familiar with the PS3 and I still see it as a quality product, I particularly like the range of media options and the use of standards such as hard drives, USB ports, bluetooth, wireless built into one package.
Free net access was important for me (although now I have got PS plus which is £40 a year or using the deals £31.00 a year/£40 for 18 months whichever is active at the time) but that also gets me a load of content in the year, far too much for me to use it all.
Will I get the next Playstation? Probably, I am a PS man and I am familiar with the controls, way of playstation and PSN so the next one will build on that, but for now, PS3 is great for me and people in my family to use almost every day.
I know XBOX people who relegated that device to a bedroom as it is seen as just a gaming machine for that person/type of person. Sony aimed the media features at a different type of person, and that suits me.
+How can anyone miss out on LittleBigPlanet and Uncharted??
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021