Sony: PlayStation Continues Official Leadership

Plus, Xbox 360 won't go the distance

Posted by Staff
Kaz Hirai
Kaz Hirai
In a rather remarkable statement Sony Computer Entertainment's CEO, Kaz Hirai, has said that regardless of installed base and sales figures, "I'd like to think that we continue official leadership in this industry."

SPOnG can only think that Kaz has a rather strange definition of 'official'. Last time we checked, there wasn't an official body to hand out titles relating to who is the officially official leader of the industry. Maybe he means that Sony is the most recognised gaming brand?

Despite the way Kaz might want to judge who's leading the way, installed base seems to be the most sensible way to judge who is at the front. Bear in mind that he is able to use the PlayStation brand rather than a single console. When grouping all PlayStation branded gaming hardware - and with an estimated 140 million PS2s supporting the figures - of course he's technically correct on install base for the brand over Wii, DS and Xbox (360).

However, using a last-gen console to compete in this climate is treading some thin ice. At the last count (in September last year) 34.55 million Wiis had been sold worldwide; 16.84 million PS3s had been shifted. But Hirai has an answer to this, "It's difficult to talk about Nintendo because we don't look at their console as being competitors. They're a different world and we operate in our world - that's kind of the way I look at things", he says.

Kaz should also probably send out a memo to Sony Computer Entertainment America, because for a limb of a company that supposedly doesn't see Nintendo as a competitor, it sure spent a lot of words on trying to do the Wii down a couple of weeks ago.

In terms of handhelds, 84.33 million DSes had been sold as of the end of September. 41 million PSPs had been sold as of mid-August.

And what of the Xbox 360 and its installed base of 28 million (as of January)? "And with the Xbox - again, I can't come up with one word to fit. You need a word that describes something that lacks longevity", uttered Hirai.

"Last time I checked, they've never had a console that's been on the market for more than four or five years and we've committed to a ten year life cycle, so you do the math.

"And unless things go really bad", Hirai went on, "there's no way that at the end of a life cycle our competition is going to have a higher install base."

Not that Microsoft agrees that that will even happen. According to Shane Kim (Microsoft's corporate VP of Strategy and Business Development in its entertainment business), the 360's lifespan will be, "One day longer than the lifespan of the PlayStation 3."

SPOnG is left, once again, to wonder how long Sony can hold off a PS3 price cut...

Source: Official PlayStation Magazine
Companies:
People:

Comments

SuperSaiyan4 20 Jan 2009 12:00
1/7
The last time I checked Microsoft's 1st console was the original Xbox that came out after the PS2.
The PS2 already had the loyality of its customers from the PS1 due to the install base and also had a lead on the PS2 sales by a year over the original Xbox.

Microsoft came in late with the Xbox but despite this if you look at it Microsoft leaped ahead of Sony with Xbox Live. Also games were more hardcore, better graphics and overall better hardware but again Sony already had the brand name and install base.

However this gen Microsoft had the lead against Sony, Microsoft obtained exclusives of games and content and its Microsoft with a huge Xbox Live userbase along with games taken from the Playstation library.

If we look at it basically the way Microsoft has the established the Xbox 360 they have more support from developers, tons more RPG's especially JRPG's and overall tons more content on offer on Xbox Live along with a very well priced games console with everything you need for HD gaming inluding a HDMI cable...(Elite system) whereas Sony was quoted saying that everyone that buys a PS3 is an Elite well it cant it lacks a simple thing called a HDMI cable.
mrAnthony 20 Jan 2009 12:58
2/7
how exactly can a game be deemed "more hardcore"

plus

"Microsoft came in late with the Xbox but despite this if you look at it Microsoft leaped ahead of Sony with Xbox Live. Also games were more hardcore, better graphics and overall better hardware but again Sony already had the brand name and install base."

doesn't that sound a little similar to this generation, bit flipped in microsoft's favour. (remember i say a little, i just mean the year an a half's difference in when it went on sale, hardware etc, and yeah yeah i know you'll bang on about how games run better and look better on the xbox, like you always do)

it's just funny is all. not ha ha, you understand.
more comments below our sponsor's message
OptimusP 20 Jan 2009 15:43
3/7
Well, he's wrong though. The PS2 didn't become market leader because of the brand and install base. It became market leader because it got the most games. You become market leader because you have the most games on your system, not the other way around.

Both HD consoles failed at this because of their high-cost, stagnant market structure.

The PS2 managed to have the most games because of the market situation. The Dreamcast had a mother company with a huge debt, no was not seen as viable. Nintendo was being Nintendo aka very secretive and MS was a big unknown, so all the low and mid-tier developers went to the PS2.

Brand and install base is what "hip" marketeers use, who actually don't know buttocks about the market, because it's the most obvious one in a retrospective way. Because really, if brand and install base was really a factor, why did the DS win then? it won because it got the most games because low and mid-tier developers where not interested in making watered down PS2 games on a bloody handheld. 2D is far cheaper.
Rutabaga 20 Jan 2009 16:34
4/7
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
... and overall tons more content on offer on Xbox Live along with a very well priced games console with everything you need for HD gaming inluding a HDMI cable...(Elite system) whereas Sony was quoted saying that everyone that buys a PS3 is an Elite well it cant it lacks a simple thing called a HDMI cable.

[FREE online gaming + 10 HDMI cable] versus [PAYING for online gaming + FREE HDMI cable] your logic is astounding.
SuperSaiyan4 20 Jan 2009 16:59
5/7
Rutabaga wrote:
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
... and overall tons more content on offer on Xbox Live along with a very well priced games console with everything you need for HD gaming inluding a HDMI cable...(Elite system) whereas Sony was quoted saying that everyone that buys a PS3 is an Elite well it cant it lacks a simple thing called a HDMI cable.

[FREE online gaming + 10 HDMI cable] versus [PAYING for online gaming + FREE HDMI cable] your logic is astounding.


Given what you get with an Xbox Live subscription + the content + an actual Xbox 360 headset + the number of Xbox Live gamers its worth it.
Rutabaga 21 Jan 2009 12:32
6/7
SuperSaiyan4 wrote:
Given what you get with an Xbox Live subscription + the content + an actual Xbox 360 headset + the number of Xbox Live gamers its worth it.

If you're typical of Xbox live gamers, then I'm glad I'm on the FREE PSN, with no headset.
Raaj 21 Jan 2009 18:50
7/7
It's the dam hadware reliabilty that lets down the 360 'brand' BIG time..
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.