Is Sony losing it's U.S.A. fan base???

[x-cybertr0n-x]

There's a really cool website called VG Chartz.com that shows video game sales for all consoles, plus the sales numbers for the consoles. You can break it down by month, year or all time. So I did an all time search for the top 50 games in U.S.A. and surprisingly there are only 2 PS3 games on that list.

Here's a link to the break down: http://vgchartz.com/atotals.php

I've never been a real big fan of Sony but I have always respected what they have done in the gaming industry. Are they going to keep heading in a downwards spiral???

[esophagus]

How can you tell if it's losing its fanbase if you're looking at all-time as a whole rather than trends through time?

Still, yes, they are losing there fanbase. Allowing Microsoft to get the 360 out and develop a library of games before they released a new system (with limited backwards compatibility, no less) did them quite a bit of harm.

[minik]

I have never been a fan of Sony, but their products do come in a nice package. Before getting an iPod in 2002, I was a Sony-branded CD Walkman and Mini-Disc user. It was enjoyable at that time.

Almost 8 years ago, I bought my first digital camera and it's a Sony-brand. Several years later, I upgraded to another Sony-brand digital camera. I'm not sure why I stick with the Sony's proprietary memory format (aka Memory stick).

2 years ago, I bought the 60GB PS3 as my 3rd gaming console (after the Xbox 360 [now sold] and Wii).

If you're focusing on the game titles, I don't really fancy to spend $60 for a game. As of today, I have only 4 or 5 PS3 titles vs ~10 Wii games at home. However, I still prefer the PS3 as an all round entertainment system. My experience with the Xbox 360 wasn't that enjoyable as I had the Core edition. I cannot comment on the current 'improved' hardware since I never gotten my hands on.

Although I'm no hardcore gamer, I believe that Sony is slipping away from gaming. The hardware is outstanding tho.

[rabidbadger]

back in my day "sony" = "quality" for household electronics. Back in analog days. Now "sony" = "rootkit," + "degraded quality" + "overprice, under powered crap" + "Lock-in-(worse than apple) atrak".


Hate hate hate sony. So much, I don't even capitalize their name anymore.

[esophagus]

back in my day "sony" = "quality" for household electronics. Back in analog days. Now "sony" = "rootkit," + "degraded quality" + "overprice, under powered crap" + "Lock-in-(worse than apple) atrak".


Hate hate hate sony. So much, I don't even capitalize their name anymore.They still make quality stuff. Especially televisions. They've just lost their innovation.

[tokenuser]

back in my day "sony" = "quality" for household electronics. Back in analog days. Now "sony" = "rootkit," + "degraded quality" + "overprice, under powered crap" + "Lock-in-(worse than apple) atrak".


Hate hate hate sony. So much, I don't even capitalize their name anymore.I love my PS3.

Sitting at home somewhere still is my Sony WM3 (the first auto reverse Sony Walkman), a CD discman I got for my 21st birthday (*ahem* *cough* years ago) that I mounted in my car before incar CDs were available. Our AMP is a Sony Receiver, and we have the one it replaced upstairs attached to a Sony 27" TV (old school tube TV), and the one we brought from Australia is plugged into my computer in my office.

Plenty of Sony gear in my life :)

Its all been good, and I'll say again - love my PS3.

Comparing PS3 sales against all time game sales is a bit disingenuous though. Also, including things like DS, GB in the list is also odd - compare them to a PSP, but they aren't console platforms.

[rabidbadger]

I owned half the same stuff, Token, back in the day, but all I know is if I'm shopping for home electronics NOW, sony is NOT my go-to-guy anymore. Not now that it's digital. i do NOT trust them anymore.

[crabcakes]

They have without a shadow of a doubt the best hardware this generation, but the price was just too much at the start. It may be closer now, but its too late. Sony will have to wait for the PS4 to compete again.

[tokenuser]

I owned half the same stuff, Token, back in the day, but all I know is if I'm shopping for home electronics NOW, sony is NOT my go-to-guy anymore. Not now that it's digital. i do NOT trust them anymore.I hear you. Our 60" TV is Hitachi, our DVD player (replaced by the PS3) is Samsung, the head unit in my car is Alpine.

They rested on their laurels and let the Koreans catch up.

[bigshotprof]

They won the HD DVD war, so that will help. They also have deep pockets. I wouldn't count them out.

[rokov]

back in my day "sony" = "quality" for household electronics. Back in analog days. Now "sony" = "rootkit," + "degraded quality" + "overprice, under powered crap" + "Lock-in-(worse than apple) atrak".


Hate hate hate sony. So much, I don't even capitalize their name anymore.

I completely agree and let's not forget exploding/spontaneously combusting batteries.

They were a great company once upon a time, but over the last few years they can't seem to stop sabotaging themselves. Frankly, I'm amazed they have any fans left.

[jpeg87]

i've been pondering this for a while. I can remember when PS2 came out the thing was more hyped than Jesus and everyone was on the sony bandwagon. then as previously stated, the 360 just took that gamer fanbase over.


one day xbox will be another relic stored away in your garage...

[scoobydiesel]

I still like sony, I may not care much about my PS3. But they have done alot in the past that i care about and is history in a good way.

I hope they are always around in one way or another.

[crabcakes]

I like sony a lot. If I had the money, I would buy a PS3 this very second. Yes, I would run out to Walmart in the middle of the night because they are great products.

I own a Sony Vaio laptop, and other than the extended battery that I stupidly paid an extra 100 dollars for, it is a great value for a mid-ranged laptop, and runs amazingly well.

Bought in Late August:
VGN-FW190
16.4 inch 1080p screen
2.4 ghz Core 2 duo processor
ATI radeon HD 3470 processor
4 gigs of RAM
320 gb hard drive
big ole' battery
=
1,200 bucks

[gta_bmx]

a CD discman I got for my 21st birthday (*ahem* *cough* years ago) that I mounted in my car before in car CDs were available.

I got a Sony Discman for my 15th birthday in 1987. Wonderful unit. No Mega Bass, no EQ, nothing, just a well-made little black box that cost (I think) about $100 at Circuit City. I connected it to the 1970's Yamaha Natural Sound receiver stereo system that my grandparents gave me. You can buy CD players for $20 now but they're junk, but I suppose Sony still makes good CD players.

I used to like Mitsubishi products a lot. I tried to talk dad into a Mitsubishi VCR, but he bought a JC Penney branded one instead. It sure was cool when we got our first VCR, back in 1985. Going to the video store was a treat. One of the first films I picked out myself to rent was 'Dawn of the Dead.' My dad let us rent R rated films.

[njshadow]

I think Sony is still excellent and their almost always at the top of my list when I'm shopping for electronics, ESPECIALLY TVs.

I think the PS3 is doing well. It's only a few million away from the 360's total sales and the 360 got a head start. PS3 FTW. I think PS3 sales are high when consumer spending is slow and people have a chance to evaluate their purchase. The 360 sells well when consumer spending is high, shopping is hectic and people tend to but the cheapest console. I don't know if Sony is going to win this generation or not, but I definitely believe they have the superior console and Killzone 2, God of War 3, Heavy Rain and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves are gonna prove that. (If somehow MGS4, Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet didn't already.)

[darknessgp]

There's a really cool website called VG Chartz.com that shows video game sales for all consoles, plus the sales numbers for the consoles. You can break it down by month, year or all time. So I did an all time search for the top 50 games in U.S.A. and surprisingly there are only 2 PS3 games on that list.

Here's a link to the break down: http://vgchartz.com/atotals.php

I've never been a real big fan of Sony but I have always respected what they have done in the gaming industry. Are they going to keep heading in a downwards spiral???

a few things...

1) You only counted PS3 GAMES, not PSP or PS2. Nor did you count console sales. This skews it, as EVERY Wii console sold means a WiiSports copy is sold.

2) You are looked at all-time not a progression through time. You can not predict future sales by doing that.

3) Sony does more than sell Video Games consoles.

[burkhartmj]

I was a diehard sony fan up through the minidisc days, but these days, I avoid them like the plague. The main reason for this is that they want to lock consumers into a sony environment, with proprietary players, memory standards, etc. I try to stick to the more open standards like SD.

[crabcakes]

I think Sony is still excellent and their almost always at the top of my list when I'm shopping for electronics, ESPECIALLY TVs.

I think the PS3 is doing well. It's only a few million away from the 360's total sales and the 360 got a head start. PS3 FTW. I think PS3 sales are high when consumer spending is slow and people have a chance to evaluate their purchase. The 360 sells well when consumer spending is high, shopping is hectic and people tend to but the cheapest console. I don't know if Sony is going to win this generation or not, but I definitely believe they have the superior console and Killzone 2, God of War 3, Heavy Rain and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves are gonna prove that. (If somehow MGS4, Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet didn't already.)

For hardware, there isn't really a debate... the PS3 is the best, but the Xbox 360 has way more games that way more people seem to enjoy, as they sell way more copies than their PS3 counterparts and competitors. Sale-wise, the Wii already won this generation, but most of the consoles are owned by non-gamers.

[burkhartmj]

For hardware, there isn't really a debate... the PS3 is the best, but the Xbox 360 has way more games that way more people seem to enjoy, as they sell way more copies than their PS3 counterparts and competitors. Sale-wise, the Wii already won this generation, but most of the consoles are owned by non-gamers.

That brings up a curious question [for me at least]. Most consoles are loss leaders and the games make up for it. But the Wii is selling like hotcakes mainly to people who buy 1 or 2 shovelware games and are content for months if not years, so the console is the main thing selling. Is the Wii making them any money?

I know this is off topic, but I had to ask.

[crabcakes]

Yes they make lotsof money, and Sony and Microsoft make lots from consoles too, they just say otherwise. Its like a car dealer: When he says "I'm losing money on this!", he is just saying it to get you to buy the car, not because its true. If he was losing money on the cars, he would go into the air freshener business.

[fishtoprecords]

Sony is a huge company, it has a lot of different fan bases.

I used to buy tons of Sony consumer electronics. They have lost me from that fan base. For too long, they have provided CE stuff that is more expensive than the competitors and not any better. Other Japanese and Korean firms are providing the quality and innovation that Sony did in the 70s and 80s.

[slynine]

They have without a shadow of a doubt the best hardware this generation, but the price was just too much at the start. It may be closer now, but its too late. Sony will have to wait for the PS4 to compete again.

Actually there is a lot of doubt, Xbox has a better GPU, 3 powerful General purpose physical cores. Compared to PS3's weaker GPU and while the Cell is a very powerful floating point CPU, the General purpose part is the same power PC processor in the Xbox 360, except there's only one that's supplemented by the 7 SPE's that have to be hand fed, one of those SPEs are dedicated to the OS so that makes 6. Why do you think games often times look worse on the PS3.

The PS3 is not beyond a shadow of a doubt the best hardware. Any one who say's that is a fanboi

[crabcakes]

Actually there is a lot of doubt, Xbox has a better GPU, 3 powerful General purpose physical cores. Compared to PS3's weaker GPU and while the Cell is a very powerful floating point CPU, the General purpose part is the same power PC processor in the Xbox 360, except there's only one that's supplemented by the 7 SPE's that have to be hand fed, one of those SPEs are dedicated to the OS so that makes 6. Why do you think games often times look worse on the PS3.

The PS3 is not beyond a shadow of a doubt the best hardware. Any one who say's that is a fanboi

Here is the deal: Every game that comes out on both platforms looks better on the PS3. Maybe the GPU has lesser specs (which I am not saying it does, because I do not know if that is a fact), but the graphics on something like Madden 09 look better than the 360 version.

And do not call me a "fanboi". I do not and have never owned a PS3, while I have owned a 360 for 3 years and continue to buy products for it.

I believe you should go to this website: pwned.com

[heyseuss]

The PS3 is not beyond a shadow of a doubt the best hardware. Any one who say's that is a fanboi

Wrong.

This is common knowledge, so I guess all the educated ppls on the subject are fanbois.

[slynine]

Here is the deal: Every game that comes out on both platforms looks better on the PS3. Maybe the GPU has lesser specs (which I am not saying it does, because I do not know if that is a fact), but the graphics on something like Madden 09 look better than the 360 version.

And do not call me a "fanboi". I do not and have never owned a PS3, while I have owned a 360 for 3 years and continue to buy products for it.

I believe you should go to this website: pwned.com

LOL no they don't and I have played both first hand. the 360 version of Madden is better.

Look at any head to head. You are flat out dead wrong.

http://insider.ign.com/articles/934/934656p3.html Tomb Raider Underworld Head-To-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/939/939336p3.html Rise of the Argonauts Head-To-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/919/919805p3.html Saints Row 2 Head-To-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/948/948541p3.html Lord of the Rings: Conquest Head-To-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/948/948916p3.html Afro Samurai Head-to-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/953/953154p3.html F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin Head-to-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/954/954013p3.html X-Blades Head-to-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/931/931712p3.html Need for Speed Undercover Head-To-Head

http://insider.ign.com/articles/924/924247p4.html Fallout 3 Head-to-Head

There is a list of 9! recent games released that look BETTER on 360 then PS3. So the thought of someone saying multiplatform games look better on PS3, Is just so ... Facepalm. considering that 90% of the time they look better on 360!

[slynine]

Wrong.

This is common knowledge, so I guess all the educated ppls on the subject are fanbois.

It is not lol. It looks better on paper, but in practice it has failed to live up to expectations.

[arshen]

They are.
They have to be.

Aren't their profits down like crazy?

I don't know...But toward the end of the PS2 era, its seemed like the Playstation brand was turning into a Gramer magnet.

[heyseuss]

It is not lol. It looks better on paper, but in practice it has failed to live up to expectations.

Not 'failed to live up to expectations', but, 'hasn't reached expectations yet'. It's going to be a while before the PS3's capabilities are fully realised, something tht happened to the 360, the day after it was realeased.... oh yeah, except with technical and design errors that haven't happened with the PS3 yet.

[slynine]

Not 'failed to live up to expectations', but, 'hasn't reached expectations yet'. It's going to be a while before the PS3's capabilities are fully realised, something tht happened to the 360, the day after it was realeased.... oh yeah, except with technical and design errors that haven't happened with the PS3 yet.

Actually, no. The Xbox360 has not been tapped out yet, SMT has not yet been done very well for games. If you had any idea of how to program you would realize why the PS3 may never be "tapped", its SPEs have to be hand feed by the PPE. Which in very few situations do the SPEs offer a real world performance advantage. That's why dev's often ignore them. So you end up with the same power PC hyperthreaded CPU in the PS3 that's in the 360, except the 360 has 3 of them where the PS3 only has one.

Think of it this way. The Nvidia Tesla platform offers around a Tflop of performance, because it uses 4 280GTX's its great for SOME scientific work. So why don't they use the 280's for the CPU instead of just the GPU. Well it would be WORTHLESS as a CPU, just like the Cell processor is not that useful for most instructions.

The 1900XT ATI is a lot more powerful of a FP CPU then the Cell processor, but not quite as functional. In turn, the Cell processor is a lot better at FP then the Xbox 360's CPU but again not nearly as functional.

The PS3's GPU is based off of the 7800GTX with a few more shaders, but also a few compromises. The 1900XT based GPU (again some compromises as it is for a console) in the 360 is quite a bit more powerful, Which is why 360 games continue to look better.

But to assume that the 360 was "tapped out" or has been "tapped out" shows your bias and fanboism.

The PS3 is great for scientific work, is a very powerful FP computer and sports an impressive Flops rating, Weather that will translate in to an advantage or not remains to be seen. But don't hold your breath and dont think for a second the 360 is done either.

As far as the overheating issue, Thats why I recommened a PS3. But I don't fool them in to believeing the hype. That and all the BS with MS and Xboxlive. Paying for a Madden roster update is BS.

[darknessgp]

Actually there is a lot of doubt, Xbox has a better GPU, 3 powerful General purpose physical cores. Compared to PS3's weaker GPU and while the Cell is a very powerful floating point CPU, the General purpose part is the same power PC processor in the Xbox 360, except there's only one that's supplemented by the 7 SPE's that have to be hand fed, one of those SPEs are dedicated to the OS so that makes 6. Why do you think games often times look worse on the PS3.

The PS3 is not beyond a shadow of a doubt the best hardware. Any one who say's that is a fanboi

Funny you say the Cell is a very powerful floating point CPU... The main difference between GPUs and CPUs is that GPUs are optimized for floating point calculations, along with other optimizations used drawing graphics.

Oh and thx for posting links to Insider videos. BTW, side by side comparisons have been known to get skewed as some reviewers don't turn on some of the hdmi features and therefore causing one side to look bad.

[slynine]

Funny you say the Cell is a very powerful floating point CPU... The main difference between GPUs and CPUs is that GPUs are optimized for floating point calculations, along with other optimizations used drawing graphics.

Oh and thx for posting links to Insider videos. BTW, side by side comparisons have been known to get skewed as some reviewers don't turn on some of the hdmi features and therefore causing one side to look bad.

The Cell's SPEs are optimized for floating point calculations but still designed to be more functional then a GPU. They sacrifice speed for functionality, where a Video card sacrifices functionality and accuracy for speed as well as being a massively parallel processing unit ( a single GPU can have a thousand pipelines being used every cycle). While GPU's may have some fixed function hardware the vast majority is not, it's programmable and can be programmed to do a lot . With restrictions to how memory can be written and read from, which is the biggest limiting factor to Videocards usefulness plus their's an inability to use loops and what ifs etc etc, in the programming language. But now a lot of those limitations are gone. Today's video cards can decode, encode, do scientific research, and much more. Soon they will be more functional then the Cell and still be worthless as a stand alone CPU , just as the SPEs are worthless without the PPE. I'm really interested in what DX11 videocards will bring to the table http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3507.

Yes the side by sides, They have them running at 720 or 1080, whatever the highest resolution of the game for that console will run at. To the best of my knowledge, I trust what they say for the most part. Some I have played on both systems first hand and can verify their results personally. Others I cannot, and the reviewer can always be biased as well. But I was just trying to say the PS3 does not look better on all games for both systems.

Bottom line, it is not accurate to say the PS3 is the superior system without debate, its been debated many times with no real conclusion. Many argue that the Xbox has built a system that is better for making video games while the PS3 has more unusable power and then some think the PS3 just needs more time. The only conclusion one can gather are the results of the games. If we are going by that metric then the Xbox360 is better right now. If we are going by system reliability (laughs) then the PS3 is vastly better.

[crabcakes]

No online video of yours will convince me of what you say because I have seen in person time and time again that ps3 graphics usually look better. and nice "90% of the time" stat. i can make up stats too: 90% of all ps3 cross platform games have more intense shading than their 360 counterparts. there.

[slynine]

No online video of yours will convince me of what you say because I have seen in person time and time again that ps3 graphics usually look better. and nice "90% of the time" stat. i can make up stats too: 90% of all ps3 cross platform games have more intense shading than their 360 counterparts. there.

I've seen them in person too. So you prove nothing, at least I showed a 3rd parties thoughts. One that's supposed to be professional and others can read their site for them selves and get a taste for whether they are biased or not. What you or I say should be considered hearsay by every one that doesn't know us.

Also you can knock the stats, but understand when statistics work, and when they don't work. When you do statistics of a group of 300 people, when their are 6 billion people on the planet. They don't work.

When you do statistics on the games, since their are only a few dozen head to heads and you take in to account every single one. They do work and can be proven whether they were "made up" or not. Also considering the context of the comment I didn't feel that it should be took literally, but rather figuratively.

But whatever, keep on arguing.

While you are at it, Why don't you trying substantiating your statistic. Any collaborating evidence to go along with that. How was the study taken and what methods did you use?

[crabcakes]

Why would you try to argue in a civilized way for the beginning and say something like "but whatever, keep on arguing". I am now arguing with your way of arguing. Previously, I was only stating my opinion, but now I say that you are a bad arguer who employs the cop-out.

[slynine]

Why would you try to argue in a civilized way for the beginning and say something like "but whatever, keep on arguing". I am now arguing with your way of arguing. Previously, I was only stating my opinion, but now I say that you are a bad arguer who employs the cop-out.

lol, since you are incapable of having a debate, I'll just let this one die. Unless you want to try backing up anything you said with more then just, you think it looks better.

[computoman]

My brothers and I prefer Samsung.