• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NPD: Xbox One wins October NPD. Best Selling Console in US 4th Month In a Row

Coxy100

Banned
Because Sony totally nailed Pro's price. It seems like you think the Pro only attracts enthusiasts / the "hardcore" gamers out there. Well, it doesn't. It has a 100% mass market compatible price tag and attracts every customer segment except the cost-driven one(s), for which Sony introduced the PS4 Slim.

LOL! PS4 Pro is priced RIGHT! It's not an issue.
Oh I agree the Pro is priced right - I agree with that. What I'm saying is I believe the majority of buyers at this stage in a generation are more bothered about price - that's why they have waited this long. Some people are only prepared to pay a certain price.

Therefore they will get the cheapest option out there. Why buy the Pro now when it will be cheaper in the future? That's why I think the Pro will do well, but not brilliant. If they are prepared to pay the Pro price now why didn't they buy a PS4 at launch?
 
Oh I agree the Pro is priced right - I agree with that. What I'm saying is I believe the majority of buyers at this stage in a generation are more bothered about price - that's why they have waited this long. Some people are only prepared to pay a certain price.

Therefore they will get the cheapest option out there. Why buy the Pro now when it will be cheaper in the future? That's why I think the Pro will do well, but not brilliant. If they are prepared to pay the Pro price now why didn't they buy a PS4 at launch?

So, then you actually get why I laughed about someone who claimed that "price" is one of PS4 Pro's major flaws.

The good thing is that basically for the first time ever (at least in the younger history of consoles) we are about to find out which customer segments are the bigger ones. Before that, we only had the old (and by now outdated) PLC model to explain purchase behaviour.
 
I always wondered why people tend to care about US only. Everytime I hear "so and so wins" I think global. Now I know not to

Because that usually happens in an NPD thread, which is the US market tracker. There are GfK threads for the UK, Media Create threads for Japan, and those are different.

If you think "people tend to care about US only" it's because you've mostly entered NPD threads, which are specifically talking about the US market.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Because Sony totally nailed Pro's price. It seems like you think the Pro only attracts enthusiasts / the "hardcore" gamers out there. Well, it doesn't. It has a 100% mass market compatible price tag and attracts every customer segment except the cost-driven one(s), for which Sony introduced the PS4 Slim.

$400 w/o a game is not mass market price 3 years into a console generation. Mass market segment = the cost driven segment.

It's a great price for an upgrade though. I also wonder how the PSVR affected people's decision to upgrade, I imagine many enthusiasts had to choose one or the other.

Edit: we are entering largely uncharted territory though, so there is a chance that mass market expectations have changed.
 
$400 w/o a game is not mass market price 3 years into a console generation. Mass market segment = the cost driven segment.
.

The new iterative concept basically nullifies this argument from my point of view. PS4 Pro sales numbers within the next months will decide if you or I am right.
 
Congrats to the Xbox team, even thought I'm waiting for Scorpio, I'm tempted to get a S.

I expect PS4 to sell better this month, after all, they are reselling the console to their user base plus the newcomers getting the slim, its basically PlayStation family. Nevertheless, I would like to see Xbox S vs PS4 slim.
 

cakely

Member
I understand that people are excited, but attacking Abdiel for giving one of his extremely useful retail insights is absolutely shameful.

This is currently our monthly NPD results thread. All discussion of NPD results is welcome here.
 

Coxy100

Banned
So, then you actually get why I laughed about someone who claimed that "price" is one of PS4 Pro's major flaws.

The good thing is that basically for the first time ever (at least in the younger history of consoles) we are about to find out which customer segments are the bigger ones. Before that, we only had the old (and by now outdated) PLC model to explain purchase behaviour.

Touché :)
 

Zyae

Member
I always wondered why people tend to care about US only. Everytime I hear "so and so wins" I think global. Now I know not to

Because its the biggest console market by far and where most of the games are sold? How is that hard to understand.
 

shandy706

Member
Dude it's Neogaf, remember 2010 over here NPDs? Doom and Gloom for Ps3 and in the end Ps3 won in sales WW by some difference.

Every single sales chart I've seen, that was accurate...and it's been a year or more since I checked, still has the Xbox 360 having sold more World Wide. It had quite a lead at one point.

Even data from like 2014 had it selling more WW. Yet I still randomly see people post this.
 

On Demand

Banned
To be fair about NPD vs WW sales discussions, MS started using WW data in their PR so I really don't see the problem. I never understood why people were that specific anyway. It's kinda hard not bringing up other regions when talking about sales.


And lol at people going after Abdiel.
 

Trup1aya

Member
The new iterative concept basically nullifies this argument from my point of view. PS4 Pro sales numbers within the next months will decide if you or I am right.

Yeah I was late with my edit, but these are uncharted territories in many ways, it's true.

I just don't imagine that many who decided, for 3 years, AGAINST spending $400 for a console, (even when it started getting bundled with games), will suddenly jump at the opportunity- Especially they have ways much cheaper ways to access the same games.

Come Black Friday, once you factor in tax and the value of additional games, you'll be able to walk out with a slim/xb1s for effectively half of what you'd spend on a Pro. I still say price trumps the performance bump, especially when OG PS4 performance has never been an issue for folks.
 

labaronx

Member
To be fair about NPD vs WW sales discussions, MS started using WW data in their PR so I really don't see the problem. I never understood why people were that specific anyway. It's kinda hard not bringing up other regions when talking about sales.


And lol at people going after Abdiel.

Yeah i dont get that... hes been pretty reliable with sales info especially last holiday and considering hes one of the few sales insiders (verified) we have left here the venom being spewed seems completely unwarranted
 
Because its the biggest console market by far and where most of the games are sold? How is that hard to understand.
I don't think that justifies having a "US only" mindset. I get we're in a NPD thread but being conscious of what is occurring broadly is important when speculating or reaching conclusions about the consoles. I mean, consider Sony's WW lead and how the US isn't as big a driver for them compared to MS. If I remember correctly, US makes up ~36% of Sony's sales and the US is somewhere between 50-60% for MS. Perhaps, that is why Sony and MS are handling promotion and deals a certain way in the US? Who knows.

That stuff is relevant even if it isn't the primary focus of the thread. I think it is at least something to consider because some of the conclusions drawn in here....yeah.
 

iavi

Member
I seriously don't think Pro sales are going to light up the charts like people think. It's gonna be the battle of a 400 dollar box that does 4k and a 250 (or even lower) box that does "4k" gaming, but actually does native 4k everything else--including UHD BD.

There's value in both. But to the average person just getting a 4k set, there's actually just as much in the S for a lot less.
 
Come Black Friday, once you factor in tax and the value of additional games, you'll be able to walk out with a slim/xb1s for effectively half of what you'd spend on a Pro. I still say price trumps the performance bump, especially when OG PS4 performance has never been an issue for folks.

Isn't Black Friday all about amazing deals / prices anyhow? Of course the undiscounted Pro will have a hard time that day, when the super-cost-conscious buyers wait hours in front of the stores to get their new super cheap consoles. I have no doubt that the winner of this very day will be decided between Slim and S, with S having the better chances.

For the rest of the holiday season, now that depends if Sony will be bothered to make a proper PS4 Pro bundle as well and if Slim and/or S will continue to be discounted to ~$250.
 

labaronx

Member
I seriously don't think Pro sales are going to light up the charts like people think. It's gonna be the battle of a 400 dollar box that does 4k and a 250 (or even lower) box that does "4k" gaming, but actually does native 4k everything else--including UHD BD.

There's value in both. But to the average person just getting a 4k set, there's actually just as much in the S for a lot less.

The xbox1s does 4k gaming?
 

Recreat3

Member
I wonder what the current situation would be if microsoft originally released the xbox in its current form (without a uhd player and reveal). Do you guys think sales worldwide would be a lot closer or atleast they would have a healthy lead in the us, uk and aus?
 

Coxy100

Banned
I wonder what the current situation would be if microsoft originally released the xbox in its current form (without a uhd player and reveal). Do you guys think sales worldwide would be a lot closer or atleast they would have a healthy lead in the us, uk and aus?

yep would have been very different. A lot of 360 users left for PS4 - don't think that would have happened in your scenario (as much).
 

labaronx

Member
I wonder what the current situation would be if microsoft originally released the xbox in its current form (without a uhd player and reveal). Do you guys think sales worldwide would be a lot closer or atleast they would have a healthy lead in the us, uk and aus?

Who knows its not like the ps4 isnt still an attractive console, things would probably be closer in those regions sure but specs we're not the only problem people had with the xbox reveal
 
Because its the biggest console market by far and where most of the games are sold? How is that hard to understand.

If you consider Europe as one sales region, how much is it behind the U.S.? Can't be all that much. Sony pulled even with XBox during last gen mostly on European sales alone. Or ahead, if you factor in that PS3 released a lot later.
 
I seriously don't think Pro sales are going to light up the charts like people think. It's gonna be the battle of a 400 dollar box that does 4k and a 250 (or even lower) box that does "4k" gaming, but actually does native 4k everything else--including UHD BD.

There's value in both. But to the average person just getting a 4k set, there's actually just as much in the S for a lot less.
I don't think it has to be either/or. I think the Pro and X1S will see good results.

I wonder what the current situation would be if microsoft originally released the xbox in its current form (without a uhd player and reveal). Do you guys think sales worldwide would be a lot closer or atleast they would have a healthy lead in the us, uk and aus?
I think the lead in their strongest territories would have been more pronounced. Perhaps, the roles would be reversed in US, for example, with the X1 having a ~1M gap over PS4. Worldwide wouldn't be notably different.
 

iavi

Member
The xbox1s does 4k gaming?

Upscaled. That's why the 4k was in "". To the average person that's not tech inclined, they dont understand native vs not.

I don't think it has to be either/or. I think the Pro and X1S will see good results.

I'm taking from the context of a sales battle with winners and losers, which im getting this thread is about. Both consoles will do amazing this holiday season, no doubt.
 
I seriously don't think Pro sales are going to light up the charts like people think. It's gonna be the battle of a 400 dollar box that does 4k and a 250 (or even lower) box that does "4k" gaming, but actually does native 4k everything else--including UHD BD.

There's value in both. But to the average person just getting a 4k set, there's actually just as much in the S for a lot less.

I went with the Xbox S since it was significantly cheaper AND plays UHD Blu-ray. The game benefits of the Pro are cool, but knowing Scorpio will be around in a year, I'm going to wait and see.
 

Elandyll

Banned
Upscaled. That's why the 4k was in "". To the average person that's not tech inclined, they dont understand native vs not.
Of course you realize that with a 4K TV with a decent upscaler, a PS4S will also do "4K"?

...

Reminds me a lot of Greenberg and his "Well, you'll see a 1080p picture anyway".
 
I went with the Xbox S since it was significantly cheaper AND plays UHD Blu-ray.
I somehow doubt hundreds of thousands per month really care about UHD BR, but Microsoft has really improved the messaging and marketing recently, while Sony's got slightly mired with PS4 Pro but these sales are pre-Pro launch. I myself plan on purchasing a Pro when I find a good trade-in deal but there are plenty of gamers who think Xbox One S is doing 4K HDR and is slightly more powerful than Xbox One just like how PS4 Pro is 'slightly' more powerful than the PS4.
 
I don't care who wins console wars, but I want to add something about last generation regarding PS3 and 360, which extends to this generation with Xbox vs. PS4.

The sales numbers were virtually identical by the end of the generation, maybe one or the other "won" by a few thousand units. But, sales numbers early in a generation are more valuable than sales late in a generation because they lead to higher licensing, fees, and extras profits throughout the generation. If one console has a many-millions lead for several years, that is several years of exclusive sales and fees earned by that manufacturer on 3rd party software, accessories, and service fees.

3rd party licensing fees change per publisher, but generally, somewhere around 20% of the profit from a game goes to the console manufacturer. If one console exclusively dominates the industry for 2 or 3 years, then they're reaping large 3rd party licensing fees on third-party games sold for those years. As the generation lingers on, and console sales even out, the split of profit from 3rd party software sales evens out but that initial head start usually doesn't even out even while the number of units does.

Like Microsoft in the last generation, Sony jumped out to a big lead, and sold far more 3rd party software over those years than Microsoft did. Even if the numbers even out this generation, which they likely won't, Microsoft is going to have 2-3 years of miss revenue.

Beyond things like 3rd party software profits, there are also other residual costs like online fees. If you bought a 360 early in the last generation, it's likely that you also paid $50/year for Xbox Live at least for those first few years. Maybe if you bought a PS3 later you canceled Xbox Live (although maybe not, Xbox Live was leagues better than PSN last generation). Likewise, the console that you first buy in this generation is more likely to be the console that you stick to that ecosystem for, and you're less likely to pay for two online service subscriptions. Sony's early sales this generation will lock many gamers into their ecosystem, even if they end up purchasing both consoles in the end and the hardware numbers even out (which they probably won't).

There are other factors that go into why early sales are better than late sales as well, largely around recouping sunk costs earlier in a generation and being able to reclaim lost cash. So, last gen, 80m vs 80m is an argument that only matters to fanboys.
 

iavi

Member
Of course you realize that with a 4K TV with a decent upscaler, a PS4S will also do "4K"?

...

Reminds me a lot of Greenberg and his "Well, you'll see a 1080p picture anyway".

Of course you also realize one of those boxes is marketed as a 4k box, and one isn't.
 

blakep267

Member
I wonder what the current situation would be if microsoft originally released the xbox in its current form (without a uhd player and reveal). Do you guys think sales worldwide would be a lot closer or atleast they would have a healthy lead in the us, uk and aus?
I've always thought that if the Xbox one was released the right way, the US and UK would've stayed Xbox land, however Sony would still have a grasp on the rest of the world and probably still a lead. So it would've maybe been 40 million to 30 million vs 50 million to 20-22 ish million
 

flkraven

Member
I don't care who wins console wars, but I want to add something about last generation regarding PS3 and 360, which extends to this generation with Xbox vs. PS4.

The sales numbers were virtually identical by the end of the generation, maybe one or the other "won" by a few thousand units. But, sales numbers early in a generation are more valuable than sales late in a generation because they lead to higher licensing, fees, and extras profits throughout the generation. If one console has a many-millions lead for several years, that is several years of exclusive sales and fees earned by that manufacturer on 3rd party software, accessories, and service fees.

3rd party licensing fees change per publisher, but generally, somewhere around 20% of the profit from a game goes to the console manufacturer. If one console exclusively dominates the industry for 2 or 3 years, then they're reaping large 3rd party licensing fees on third-party games sold for those years. As the generation lingers on, and console sales even out, the split of profit from 3rd party software sales evens out but that initial head start usually doesn't even out even while the number of units does.

Like Microsoft in the last generation, Sony jumped out to a big lead, and sold far more 3rd party software over those years than Microsoft did. Even if the numbers even out this generation, which they likely won't, Microsoft is going to have 2-3 years of miss revenue.

Beyond things like 3rd party software profits, there are also other residual costs like online fees. If you bought a 360 early in the last generation, it's likely that you also paid $50/year for Xbox Live at least for those first few years. Maybe if you bought a PS3 later you canceled Xbox Live (although maybe not, Xbox Live was leagues better than PSN last generation). Likewise, the console that you first buy in this generation is more likely to be the console that you stick to that ecosystem for, and you're less likely to pay for two online service subscriptions. Sony's early sales this generation will lock many gamers into their ecosystem, even if they end up purchasing both consoles in the end and the hardware numbers even out (which they probably won't).

There are other factors that go into why early sales are better than late sales as well, largely around recouping sunk costs earlier in a generation and being able to reclaim lost cash. So, last gen, 80m vs 80m is an argument that only matters to fanboys.

A few things:

a) This really doesn't apply to this gen, if this is the 'end' of generations (ie, perpetually backwards compatibility with Scorpio/PS4 Pro and beyond)

b) " But, sales numbers early in a generation are more valuable than sales" - Valuable to who? The console manufacturers. But that's not who is in these threads. The most passionate people in sales threads are typically fanboys that don't have a dog in this fight, so they couldn't care less when the sales occur. They just want their number to be higher than the other guys.
 

timberger

Member
That fire sale pricing on old model Xbones clearly paying off I see.

Shame there's no numbers to go with this... though I guess we'll be seeing MAUs return soon enough and those are technically "numbers" so... yay?
 

blakep267

Member
That fire sale pricing on old model Xbones clearly paying off I see.

Shame there's no numbers to go with this... though I guess we'll be seeing MAUs return soon enough and those are technically "numbers" so... yay?
Eh I'd bet that most of the sales came from the S bundles( mainly BF1 with maybe a few thousand from the gears LE)
 

Fdkn

Member
I don't care who wins console wars, but I want to add something about last generation regarding PS3 and 360, which extends to this generation with Xbox vs. PS4.

The sales numbers were virtually identical by the end of the generation, maybe one or the other "won" by a few thousand units. But, sales numbers early in a generation are more valuable than sales late in a generation because they lead to higher licensing, fees, and extras profits throughout the generation. If one console has a many-millions lead for several years, that is several years of exclusive sales and fees earned by that manufacturer on 3rd party software, accessories, and service fees.

3rd party licensing fees change per publisher, but generally, somewhere around 20% of the profit from a game goes to the console manufacturer. If one console exclusively dominates the industry for 2 or 3 years, then they're reaping large 3rd party licensing fees on third-party games sold for those years. As the generation lingers on, and console sales even out, the split of profit from 3rd party software sales evens out but that initial head start usually doesn't even out even while the number of units does.

Like Microsoft in the last generation, Sony jumped out to a big lead, and sold far more 3rd party software over those years than Microsoft did. Even if the numbers even out this generation, which they likely won't, Microsoft is going to have 2-3 years of miss revenue.

Beyond things like 3rd party software profits, there are also other residual costs like online fees. If you bought a 360 early in the last generation, it's likely that you also paid $50/year for Xbox Live at least for those first few years. Maybe if you bought a PS3 later you canceled Xbox Live (although maybe not, Xbox Live was leagues better than PSN last generation). Likewise, the console that you first buy in this generation is more likely to be the console that you stick to that ecosystem for, and you're less likely to pay for two online service subscriptions. Sony's early sales this generation will lock many gamers into their ecosystem, even if they end up purchasing both consoles in the end and the hardware numbers even out (which they probably won't).

There are other factors that go into why early sales are better than late sales as well, largely around recouping sunk costs earlier in a generation and being able to reclaim lost cash. So, last gen, 80m vs 80m is an argument that only matters to fanboys.

You're talking worldwide in that post, so this need to be corrected (again):

PS3 outsold Xbox360 yearly from the get go, there was no massive comeback, it was a steady gap reduction only stopped by a short time with the Kinect launch that lasted a while and then the gap reduction kept going again.

And while it's hard to gauge total software numbers sold worldwide by both machines, there's no indication than one was much higher than the other. 360 dominated the North American and UK splits, but the opposite was happening in Europe and Asia.

The narrative about the early crushing and the following comeback is fabricated by only looking at NPD sales, and it makes no sense because said comeback never happened in the US. It's the world who carried the ps3 to catch the 360 launching a year later.
 

timberger

Member
Eh I'd bet that most of the sales came from the S bundles( mainly BF1 with maybe a few thousand from the gears LE)

I wouldn't(OG models were going for significantly less than slim models last sale I looked at. Don't see why anyone would go for the more expensive choice in that situation), but I guess we'll never know for sure either way.
 
Top Bottom