Wii on track to beat PS2, PS3 selling like GameCube
by David Hinkle 
{ Jan 22nd 2009 at 12:43PM }
A closer dissection of the numbers shows the Wii is on pace to topple the PS2, as the Wii has outsold the PS2's comparable initial sales by 10 percent in its first 26 months of availability. In layman's terms, that means that the PS2's first 26 months on store shelves saw it unloading 15.9 million units in the U.S., whereas the Wii has sold 17.5 million here. If these sales continue, the Wii could sell 55 million consoles in America by 2014 and 154 million units worldwide. When you count up the money, that's like 257 hojillion dollars.
On the reverse side, the PS3 is performing much like Nintendo's last console did, the GameCube. The PS3 has sold 6.79 million units in the U.S. in its first 26 months, which is a hair more than the 6.75 million GameCubes that were unloaded on consumers. Of course, Nintendo finished in third last generation with that console, which made them rethink their approach and, inevitably, succeed this generation.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ryanpaulmcgowan @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:08PM
Glad to see the PS3 being blogged about on this website just as much as the Wii nowadays.
:|
David Hinkle @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:26PM
Yeah, we've been writing a ton about Sony. One post today, and one post on the 20th. Wowzers.
ryanpaulmcgowan @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:06PM
"On the reverse side, the PS3 is performing much like Nintendo's last console did, the GameCube. The PS3 has sold 6.79 million units in the U.S. in its first 26 months, which is a hair more than the 6.75 million GameCubes that were unloaded on consumers."
Real Wii related.
There shouldn't be any cross-platform blogging unless directly related to sales. This, oddly, isn't related to the Wii. How the PS3 is performing is something that the PS3 fanboy site should be blogging about, not the Wii.
Both posts these past few days are completely unrelated to the Wii (who cares what a Sony executive said about the Wii? I don't) and unprofessional. Why does it matter if the PS3 is selling like the Gamecube? The only thread of relevance the Gamecube has to the Wii is that they are both Nintendo brand consoles. That's a pretty weak link. Why aren't Virtua-boy sales considered in this? It doesn't add up.
Mainly, it's unprofessional. I came here to read about the Wii, not how the PS3 is selling compared to the gamecube.
il_duce620 @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:30PM
I personally have no problem with it...you go, Dave!
This article deals with the Wii vs PS2 sales, which also brings up another interesting point about how the GC is close to current PS3 sales. That's Nintendo vs Sony. It's related. Virtual Boy wasn't brought up in the posting because, well, Venture Beat didn't talk about it _their_ article...and as Dave was simply summarizing the Venture Beat article in this blog posting, it stands to reason that he'd summarize the WHOLE THING rather than just a snippet of it. Also, I seriously doubt PS3 Fanboy would seek to highlight the fact that their namesake is performing as well as the GC did...
I realize this isn't "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon," but there is a direct relation there. And in the interest of being complete in your journalism, it's very professional.
braeburn @ Jan 22nd 2009 4:32PM
ryanpaulmcgowan,
You keep using that word, "unprofessional." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Matias @ Jan 22nd 2009 6:17PM
ryanpaulmcgowan
I don't think is unprofessional, as a gamer I'm interested on all the news about the gaming world, even If I don't own non-nintendo consoles, because it's the rival company, and this is a news site, they do well in actually having improtant news like number of sales and comparing them, it's important to speak about the other companies, you can't argument in a discussion with other gamers if you don't know all the facts.
Rocketboy @ Jan 23rd 2009 5:31PM
Real unprofessional comments Ryan. I read comments expecting to read something pertaining to the post, not someone having a cry-baby fest.
mykie @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:10PM
I had a Gamecube last generation, and I still play it every once in awhile...truly had the best games of last generation.
Now I have a PS3 and a Wii, and both get pretty equal play time.
CJLopez @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:59PM
I get a PS2, when hearing that the Revolution would had retrocompatibilitie, I decided getting a PS2 and when the Wii came, i'd had also a cube.
So, my current platforms are PS2-PS3 (withouth the RC of course) and a Wii. Planning on getting a DSi ASAP is released in america
Gendreavus @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:14PM
Sony fanboys make enraged comments over the validity of this article in 3...2...1...
Scott @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:21PM
Gendreavus, what are you counting down for. I dont care.
Mark Sypniewski @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:23PM
I own both systems and see how people are drawn to each. The problem I find with the huge Wii #'s is that many of these consoles were bought because they were the "hot item". Right now Wii's catalog of quality titles is limited, and even some of the best games are gimmicky and lack staying power (Boom Blox, de Blob for ex.). Hopefully all the new gamers will stick around so better 3rd party games become available, until them my PS3 library grows and grows and the warm blue glow of my Wii becomes rarer and rarer.
Evan @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:30PM
The Wii's catalog of quality *hardcore* titles is limited. But the PS3's catalog of quality kids/family/casual titles is equally limited.
Mark Sypniewski @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:35PM
True, but I think the growing success of LBP on the PS3 is a welcome change for that system. I would just like to see more companies develop quality games for the Wii, not hardcore games, just quality games. There is so much shovelware I would hate to see it ruin things.
time @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:27PM
I'm sure we could see a Sony "return to form" next generation. Nintendo might have won this generation, but they haven't won the war quite yet.
CJLopez @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:06PM
Well, up to now the score is
Nintendo 3
Sony 2
Microsoft 0
Sega 0
Atari n (i'm pretty sure there was a videogame was on the past before nintendo and Atari won)
Mr Khan @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:18PM
Atari's tied with Sony at 2. The Pong Home System in the 1st generation, and the 2600 in the second generation being the dominant platforms of their respective eras
Nigeria @ Jan 22nd 2009 3:03PM
I'm pretty sure Sega won the 16bit era, hands down.
ryuk @ Jan 22nd 2009 3:18PM
@nigeria: are you serious? you're saying that the genesis beat the super nintendo?!? wow, i'm sorry, but you need to get your facts straight
esposch @ Jan 22nd 2009 5:35PM
Actually in Australia the Nintendo 64 completely buttraped the PS1 in terms of sales. Maybe in Nigeria Sega won. Unless Nigeria isn't from Nigeria, in which case he can have my credit card details. :)
Daryl @ Jan 23rd 2009 3:06PM
Consider that Nintendo is/was kicking Sony and Sega all over town in the handheld too.
Evan @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:27PM
The Wii feels more like the spiritual successor to the PS2.
- The Wii is priced more like the PS2 was.
- The Wii has games for kids and families, like the PS2 had.
But the PS3 feels like the spiritual successor to the Xbox.
- The PS3's game lineup is flooded with hardcore shooters at the expense of other genres, like the Xbox was.
So, I'm not surprised that the Wii is selling like the PS2, and the PS3 is selling like the original Xbox.
ryuk @ Jan 22nd 2009 3:15PM
what are you talking about? the ps3 had everything but shooters, the 360 has halo and gears, i chose the ps3 because it has unique games, like LBP, MGS4, warhawk, ratchet and clank, FF XIII versus, heavy rain, god of war III, uncharted, heavenly sword, motorstorm and valkyria chronicles off the top of my head, granted it does have it's share of shooters like resistance and killzone, and it has the good multiplat games like COD, and the PSN games are great with games like echochrome, flOw, flower, lumines, pixeljunk eden, pixeljunk monsters etc.
sorry for the long list i just felt i had to get that out there, that PS3 has great games
Anti-Villian @ Jan 22nd 2009 6:21PM
you are lost shinigami
http://playstation.joystiq.com/
ryuk @ Jan 22nd 2009 9:36PM
@anti-villian: who said i can't support PS3 and wii at the same time
Anti-Villian @ Jan 25th 2009 6:48PM
No that's not what I intended at all, it the list of PS games on a nintendo fansite, that's all^^
ian @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:39PM
"Nintendo finished in third last generation with that console, which made them rethink their approach and, inevitably, succeed this generation."
Something tells me Sony won't be so industrious. I'm sure there is an executive at Sony somewhere screaming "We need better graphics, damn it! Better graphics! More Processing POWER! Get on that! Right now!"
mr mobius @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:46PM
Ah! How the tables have turned.
The Sony fanboys are now mostly silent, and those that still talk use the PS2 as their ammo.
TracerBullet @ Jan 22nd 2009 1:55PM
And here I was thinking the objective of having a console was to have fun playing, and not mocking the ones who bought a different one...
I play my Wii on a Bravia TV: does this makes me a traitor of sorts? :p
Eric @ Jan 22nd 2009 8:38PM
Only as much as all of my Sony video devices (VCR, DVD-RW, Blu-ray) being connected to my Samsung TV.
Arex @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:04PM
Eh, I own both, just as I did last generation, and the generation before. I'd like to see both Nintendo and Sony succeed. I've never owned a Microsoft console, but would like to see them succeed as well.
Competition is a good thing. It breeds innovative ideas and, up 'til now, cheaper, more powerful hardware. Unfortunately, now that the Wii has smashed the competition with its ho-hum hardware (remote aside), I think next go round isn't going to be nearly as impressive as the jump from the last two generations.
Mr Khan @ Jan 22nd 2009 2:21PM
But, on the plus side, you won't have to pay through the nose next generation either
Which isn't saying that it was too prohibitively expensive this time around, but to pump out something that's in the ballpark of 20x as powerful in three years or so would cost a bundle and a half
nintendo1889 @ Jan 22nd 2009 4:09PM
Ah, how the tables have turned...In every generation, it seems that console that has the weakest specs seem to do the best. NES vs Master System = NES. SuperNES vs Genesis = SuperNES. PSX vs N64 = PSX. PS2 vs GCN vs Xbox = PS2. And now PS3 vs Wii Vs Xbox360 = Wii. Is this a coincidence? Simply because these systems had better games, that's why. Nintendo has games better suited for mainstream, whereas PS3 has nothing but FPSes that focus all nothing but WWII and/or alternate earth WWII.
Arex @ Jan 22nd 2009 5:12PM
How do you figure the SNES had weaker specs than the Genesis?
Anyway, the games that have made the Wii the clear victor this round are not the same types of games that propelled prior consoles into the lead in previous generations. You are correct though that the Wii is leading now because it is doing a better job attracting a mainstream (read: non-run-of-the-mill gamer) audience. But this is a new phenomenon. You can't really compare WiiSports (which is aimed at an expanded audience) to prior big system sellers like GTA3, Street Fighter II, Super Mario Bros., etc.
nintendo1889 @ Jan 22nd 2009 5:33PM
The Genesis had a faster CPU, the Motorola 68000, which was 7.61MHz whereas SNES had the Ricoh 5A22, which was 3.58MHz. Sega had the adverstisement, "Sega does what Nintendoesn't" claiming to be better than the SNES. They also based it on the fact that the Genesis never had slowdowns in there games, because the SNES had them alot. Programmers eventually found a way around that later on. The N64 had the R4300i which was 93.75MHz and the PSX had a MIPS R3000A at 33.8688 MHz. Yet, the PSX won that battle. Goes to show that faster CPUs won't always make a system that much better. I mean, the PS3 has several cores in it; as if programmers will ever reach the full potential!
esposch @ Jan 22nd 2009 6:13PM
But the N64 only had a 4kb texture cache, and there was no hardware Z-buffering, and the games had to fit on a 32mb cartridge (later 64mb) as opposed to a 650mb CD.
nintendo1889 @ Jan 22nd 2009 7:06PM
True. The 4kb really made a lot of games look horrible. But, unlike PSX, the polygons weren't nearly as jerky/jittery as PSX was. The fact they used cartridges and not CDs didn't help, either. I do admit, though, that there were a ton of N64 games that I still like to this day (Mario64, Mystical Ninja, Zelda, etc).
Arex @ Jan 22nd 2009 7:11PM
Wow, this brings me back to the days of the Prodigy network, before AOL took off, back when there was no real internet or WWW to speak of...
First, the "Sega does what Nintendon't" slogan was when the Genesis first came onto the scene, when the NES was still king. It had nothing to do with the SNES since the SNES wasn't released until two years later.
Second, we all know that the best way to rate the relative strength of gaming hardware is the speed of the CPU. Forget that the SNES had a more capable PPU and sound chip, basically ensuring SNES games generally looked and sounded better than the Genesis versions of the same game. All that matters is that the Genesis had more MHz!=) (Like how my 5+ year old P4 2.8GHz is more "powerful" than those weak Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz systems.) Apples to oranges.
Other than that, I do agree with your basic assertion that powerful hardware isn't all that is needed to make a competitive system. (See, e.g., Neo Geo vs. SNES/Genesis/TG16, Game Gear vs. Game Boy.)
Gillfigno @ Jan 22nd 2009 6:47PM
I'd rather something sell like a Gamecube, than actually BE two Gamecubes.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Garst @ Jan 23rd 2009 2:33AM
Unlike the GameCube, the PS3 is actually in last place in its respective generation of console sales. Nintendo never had the distinction of being last unlike Sony.
Melao @ Jan 23rd 2009 3:42AM
I don't know, but I think the Wii won't last as long as the PS3, by that maybe in the end the total PS3 sales won't be as shabby as we think. Of all the 3 consoles the PS3 looks the most "future-proof".
But for sure, in this generation the Wii is the clear winner. In the next one maybe the PS3 will still be here as a competitor to the next one. I don't know. hehehehe
BenHo @ Jan 23rd 2009 6:57AM
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is, when nintendo and microsoft come out with their next systems, sony will look lazy if they don't release a new one. the Xbox 4D and the Nintendo Watchamajigit will make the ps3 look old, no matter how powerful the PS3 is. it will be old.
bransman @ Jan 23rd 2009 9:43AM
I have both a PS3 and a Wii. I love them both equally...They each excel in different areas. I am saddened that the PS3 hasn't gained more momentum. I want to game online with more of my friends but most of them don't have the PS3 and the Wii makes online gaming less than easy most of the time.
Kai Cherry @ Jan 23rd 2009 7:14PM
Well, for you youngin's that haven't been around for all seven generations of home cosole video gaming...
It is no surprise *whatsoever* to the more informed industry watchers, pundits and older/experienced gamers that this generation is shaking out like it is...simply due to the historical fact that the most power console in a generation always loses :)
As soon as the specs, "vision" and pricing for the ps3, it was pretty much a done deal:
"This generation's NEO-GEO/3DO"
-K
Covarr @ Jan 28th 2009 2:36AM
I have a habit of playing most with the system that loses a generation. I had a N64 but not a PSX, I had a GC but not a PS2, and now I have a PS3 and a Wii but I mostly just play the PS3.
Though that's probably just temporary, until Nintendo releases another good first party title.
CliffS @ Mar 16th 2009 1:10PM
Nowadays it's easy to trade from one console to the other as soon as you're bored of it. I'm probably going to sell my PS3 on SpeedSell (http://www.speedsell.com) or eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/) and use the cash to buy a Wii. I don't think it matters which console you have if you can trade quickly between them. What do you think?