Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

For fucks sake stop with this idiotic "statistic". I love how we are now at "exact same" instead of "well, the results of this maths I did on some fuzzy data have an integer in common, they must be about the same".

actually the math makes perfect sense.

if the xbox sells 10 units this year and 20 units next year, and we assume everyone buys them on january 1st, and 40 pieces of software, you could say that's a 1.33 attach rate, because it is. it's also a 1.0 attach rate per console per year.

the reason you do a person-year attach rate would be to help mitigate the negative impact of sharply growing hardware sales on attach rate, and also mitigate the positive impact of sharply declining or slow hardware sales on attach rate.

if you take the number of person-months the consoles have been owned for, the software purchasing rate is exactly identical for all three.

what's your issue, with the concept or the math?

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Nope it will be

* 1. Halo Reach
* 2. Wii Fit Plus
* 3. Wii Sports Resort
* 4. Call of Duty 7
* 5. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
* 6. Wii Play
* 7. Super Mario Galaxy 2
* 8. Mario Kart Wii
* 9. Final Fantasy XIII
* 10. Wii something that hasn't come out yet

Gran Turismo will be released in 2010.

really..? look at the ODST sales and Hao Wars sales.. Halo isnt that big anymore...

Wrong.

 

[Jocchan]

I'm not sure an advertisement which was only a montage of game footage would be very successful with the Wii's audience. Nintendo's adverts successfully highlight the communal or social experience of playing a game, rather than just what actually happens in the games themselves.

Read my post above, I was actually talking about something slightly different and I wasn't talking about the expanded audience

But how do you tell what gets exhausted first? Furthermore, how do you distinguish content from concept?

It's pretty hard, we'd have a lot of borderline cases, but in many notable situations you can easily tell if a game's concept tends to be exhausted before its content (ie. open-ended games) making the sequels a harder sell or viceversa (ie. plot-driven games).

actually the math makes perfect sense.

if the xbox sells 10 units this year and 20 units next year, and we assume everyone buys them on january 1st, and 40 pieces of software, you could say that's a 1.33 attach rate, because it is. it's also a 1.0 attach rate per console per year.

the reason you do a person-year attach rate would be to help mitigate the negative impact of sharply growing hardware sales on attach rate, and also mitigate the positive impact of sharply declining or slow hardware sales on attach rate.

if you take the number of person-months the consoles have been owned for, the software purchasing rate is exactly identical for all three.

what's your issue, with the concept or the math?

I think his issue was more like "you don't have all the data, just scraps, therefore you can't make any meaningful conclusion". Sales agnosticism in a nutshell.

 

[poppabk]

For fucks sake stop with this idiotic "statistic". I love how we are now at "exact same" instead of "well, the results of this maths I did on some fuzzy data have an integer in common, they must be about the same".

The only fuzzy part of it is assuming that a console purchased in a given month was on average purchased in the middle of the month ie console sales are equally distributed within a given month. The total sales of hardware and software used in the calculation are NPD numbers. The average number of purchases per week of ownership end up being pretty close - what exactly is 'idiotic' about it?

 

[gerg]

If what you're saying is true, then why did Resident Evil 4 sell so well? Why did Umbrella Chronicles sell so well? Why is No More Heroes the first Suda 51 game to have sold well enough to garner a sequel? Why is Monster Hunter 3 in Japan a million seller?

With the user base that the system has, there's MORE core gamers to sell to than during this same exact point in the PS2's life cycle. Stop making up excuses.

First of all, I think I should mention that I'm only going to consider America here. Japan's "core" gamer demographic (that is, 18-35 males) may have very different values as opposed to their Western counterparts.

Secondly, although my original post was not clear on the matter (and so I apologise on this count), the problem with the Wii isn't that there is (or was) not a consistent fanbase for the games that Western third-party developers like to make - I fully agree that, at some point in time, at least, potentially upwards of three million of these consumers may have owned a Wii. (This is a statistic I have made up with no reliable evidence with which to back it.)

Rather, the problem with the Wii's 18-35 male audience is that it isn't big enough to justify making an exclusive Wii game when the same staff could be making a title to be released on both the 360 and the PS3 where there is a much larger potential audience. Although these sorts of games can make a profit on the Wii (as have RE 4, NMH and UC, as you correctly pointed out), for most developers you will end up asking them to sacrifice more money for less money, which is in no way, shape or form a good business strategy.

It's pretty hard, we'd have a lot of borderline cases, but in many notable situations you can easily tell if a game's concept tends to be exhausted before its content (ie. open-ended games) making the sequels a harder sell or viceversa (ie. plot-driven games).

So why choose the ambiguous term?

Why not simply define ("distinguish"?) games in terms of their linearity?

 

[genjiZERO]

is there any third party effor that is comparable to assassins creed 2, modern warfare 2, batman arkham assylum in terms of dev budget, marketing etc.??

not really. That's my point. I don't see why they don't. To me there seems to be an attitude that in order to have a game that sells it needs to be cinematic, work on hi definition televisions, and have massive budgets. This seems to be the same false argument that the American motor industry used to avoid selling economy cars, "American's want big cars, not economy cares" (this statement can't be true because economy cars consistently outsold big cars). The same is true here, Wii (economy cars) consistently and massively outsells PS3 and 360 (big cars), but 3rd party developers fail to take advantage of this, insisting on catering to the "big car" crowd. I know people complain that only Nintendo can sell games on Wii, but that's only because 3rd parties haven't figured out how to do it. It just seems like wasted potential to me. Especially for Japanese developers who seem to do better at simpler, more parsimonious, games.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I think the point he's trying to make is that changing the way big cooperations operate is not an easy task. Consider for example EA, who made countless franchises and annualized them. The developers of EA have thought themselves a certain way of working over the generations because most of the time their annualized franchises made EA a load of profit. All of a sudden, they have to completely change the way they operate because annual games do not sell as good as they used too, especially not on the Wii. They need to create new experiences in genres or create completely new genres. Something they haven't done in years and something the developers are not accustomed too. How is EA going to manage thousands of workers to change the way they make games in such a short time? The answer is they can't. There's a lot at stake by trying to change the way a coorperation operates. It takes an immense effort, budget and time to do such a thing, and the problem is that EA cannot garantee they will make money out of this transition, so its a huge risk as well. The industry has been unknowingly led into a trap. The more flexible companies will get out of this trap but some will certainly fall. Thast ineviteble.

As I said to Opiate, while I agree in theory I disagree that this isn't possible on the Wii. To use your example, there are only really two franchises that have even received yearly installments on the Wii from EA: Madden (a title that has gone through a formula change almost every year) and Tiger Woods (that consistently outsells it HD brethren's entries.) As with the other theories on the nebulous Wii userbase, this one does not apply universally. That was my point; throughout the Wii's life there have been numerous excuses that have been tied to the Wii as a console, when in fact said problems should be applied to the parties developing them. You reap what you sow.

 

[Sadist]

Maybe it would be a good idea for Sega in the future (not counting whatever Project Needlemouse is) not to put Sonic in "storybook" games, that awfull '06 game or transforming him into a Werehog. Should have asked Nintendo: "Hey, can we borrow the "NEW!" logo from you guys? We'll give it a blue color, just like the box and call it New! Sonic The Hedgehog and it's based on classic Sonic Gameplay.

One can dream...

To use your example, there are only really two franchises that have even received yearly installments on the Wii from EA: Madden (a title that has gone through a formula change almost every year) and Tiger Woods (that consistently outsells it HD brethren's entries.)

FIFA.

 

[phisheep]

(sensible stuff about calculating software sales rate)

I'd add to that only this point - that taking the purchase rate per console eliminates the otherwise distorting effect of which console came out first.

 

[farnham]

Wrong.

big enough to guarantee a no.1 position in 2010..? bigger then the wii franchise.. i doubt it..

 

[Lagspike_exe]

big enough to guarantee a no.1 position in 2010..? bigger then the wii franchise.. i doubt it..

The list is laughable, but Reach will do at least Halo 3 numbers. And those are pretty huge numbers.

 

[kame-sennin]

As I experience it, third parties DO care about the Wii. If they didn’t care about the console and it’s market, why would they complain so much?

Because their investors are going to look at this months sales, as they have every quarter for this entire generation, and say, "Our company is bleeding money and this Wii thing is leading the market. How come we don't have a hit on Wii?" At that point, the excuses have to flow. People have to remember that the P.R. we get from game executives is not for us. It's for investors who know very little about the games industry. When these executives say that "the Wii market is confounding" or "third party games don't sell on the Wii" or "we expected Dead Space Extraction to sell gangbusters", they are just covering their ass in front of the people who could snatch away their job. If you want to understand the real reasons why they can't make it on the Wii, just read Opiate's posts. Executives can't come out in front of their shareholders and say that they haven't been successful on the Wii because they lack the will and clarity of vision to radically transform a company from top to bottom for the sole purpose of competing in a market they don't even understand.

But they do have to say something. Or else they'll get shit-canned. Hence the monthly gaf third party threads.

 

[selig]

Since when the hell is the core-audience from 18 to 35 years?! I feel like the gaming industry is getting dumber with every day. I´d say I was a lot more hardcore in terms of the games I played when I was younger...as were all the people I know around me. It´s the grown ups that stop giving a crap about "mature", "hardcore" or whatever the buzz word is.
Really, dont try to spin silly violent action-games into something that´s primarily for 18-35 year olds. These are typical teenager games.

 

[Kenka]

* 1. Wii Fit Plus
* 2. Call of Duty 7
* 3. Wii Sports Resort
* 4. Halo Reach
* 5. Madden NFL 2011
* 6. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
* 7. Super Mario Galaxy 2
* 8. Gran Turismo 5
* 9. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2
* X. Whatever

Fixed. I know that Halo Reach is said to be a full-fledged Halo BUT I don't see it cracking the 5 M bar in 2010 in the US. The three others ? Well...

 

[boiled goose]

Rather, the problem with the Wii's 18-35 male audience is that it isn't big enough to justify making an exclusive Wii game when the same staff could be making a title to be released on both the 360 and the PS3 where there is a much larger potential audience. Although these sorts of games can make a profit on the Wii (as have RE 4, NMH and UC, as you correctly pointed out), for most developers you will end up asking them to sacrifice more money for less money, which is in no way, shape or form a good business strategy.



So why choose the ambiguous term?

Why not simply define ("distinguish"?) games in terms of their linearity?

I agree, it is not only about sales potential, but because companies have limited resources, it is about opportunity cost.

hmm how about a new perspective.... a problem with the game industry could be how secretive all companies are about development. this leads to an industry without perfect information. since all companies are individual actors acting with incomplete information everyone is trying to maximize their profits give limited resources. such a scenario could result in over development of HD games and missed opportunities on Wii. ( and result in some gaming studios losing profits, closing, layoffs, etc and fanboys whining on forums)

 

[Jocchan]

So why choose the ambiguous term?

Why not simply define ("distinguish"?) games in terms of their linearity?

Because it would be less useful to discern if people would be more or less prone to shell out more money to buy a sequel.
Plot-driven games can be completely non-linear and exhaust their content pretty fast, but if they're good they'll leave people wanting for more (they would want to know how the plot develops, and so on).
On the other hand, some linear plot-driven games could exhaust their concept (especially if they're part of an overcrowded genre that allows little room for experimentation) pretty fast, and people wouldn't want to buy a sequel. Notable example: RE Darkside Chronicles.
In Darkside Chronicles's case, though, I'd also consider a possibly sizable of the prequel's sales due to customers being misled by the IP and expecting a completely different experience. So they wouldn't be remotely interested in buying a sequel (fool me once...).

 

[Version 3.0]

For fucks sake stop with this idiotic "statistic". I love how we are now at "exact same" instead of "well, the results of this maths I did on some fuzzy data have an integer in common, they must be about the same".

I was going to correct you, but I see I've been beaten to it multiple times. Instead I'd like to ask, since you're obviously not offended by the calculation itself, which is correct and as accurate as official NPD data, what does offend you about it? Are you angry at the idea that "casual" Wii owners might buy as many games as the "hardcore" system owners? That's pure fact, except for the "casual" and "hardcore" bits, those are speculation.

 

[Vinci]

Stumpy, Opiate, and Evlar own this thread. Great analysis, great suggestions. Just fantastic across the board, you three. Finally, some new thoughts - or at least conceptual discussions - on the third party issues with the Wii.

 

[phisheep]

Because their investors are going to look at this months sales, as they have every quarter for this entire generation, and say, "Our company is bleeding money and this Wii thing is leading the market. How come we don't have a hit on Wii?" At that point, the excuses have to flow. People have to remember that the P.R. we get from game executives is not for us. It's for investors who know very little about the games industry. When these executives say that "the Wii market is confounding" or "third party games don't sell on the Wii" or "we expected Dead Space Extraction to sell gangbusters", they are just covering their ass in front of the people who could snatch away their job. If you want to understand the real reasons why they can't make it on the Wii, just read Opiate's posts. Executives can't come out in front of their shareholders and say that they haven't been successful on the Wii because they lack the will clarity of vision to radically transform a company from top to bottom for the sole purpose of competing in a market they don't even understand.

But they do have to say something. Or else they'll get shit-canned. Hence the monthly gaf third party threads.

Making a few assumptions here (maybe rash but as good as any) - that each Wii has 2-3 people play it, that the Wii demographic roughly reflects the overall population except for skewing towards families and higher incomes and away from single young men ... chances are that a third of the investors have played a Wii with some regularity.

They may not be as uninformed as we (or the CEOs) think. I look forward to some interesting shareholder meetings.

 

[Jocchan]

Because their investors are going to look at this months sales, as they have every quarter for this entire generation, and say, "Our company is bleeding money and this Wii thing is leading the market. How come we don't have a hit on Wii?" At that point, the excuses have to flow. People have to remember that the P.R. we get from game executives is not for us. It's for investors who know very little about the games industry. When these executives say that "the Wii market is confounding" or "third party games don't sell on the Wii" or "we expected Dead Space Extraction to sell gangbusters", they are just covering their ass in front of the people who could snatch away their job. If you want to understand the real reasons why they can't make it on the Wii, just read Opiate's posts. Executives can't come out in front of their shareholders and say that they haven't been successful on the Wii because they lack the will clarity of vision to radically transform a company from top to bottom for the sole purpose of competing in a market they don't even understand.

But they do have to say something. Or else they'll get shit-canned. Hence the monthly gaf third party threads.

Truth condensed in one post, except the bolded part: they're weekly, if not daily

 

[Beer Monkey]

Does anybody have a LTD sales list of 360 and PS3 exclusives, even if some numbers are approximate based on early charted months? Stuff like Uncharted, Ratchet, Left 4 Dead, Mass Effect, etc?

Would be interesting.

 

[JADS]

Nope it will be

* 1. Halo Reach
* 2. Wii Fit Plus
* 3. Wii Sports Resort
* 4. Call of Duty 7
* 5. New Super Mario Bros. Wii
* 6. Wii Play
* 7. Super Mario Galaxy 2
* 8. Mario Kart Wii
* 9. Final Fantasy XIII
* 10. Wii something that hasn't come out yet

Wants to have a word with you.

 

[Bizzyb]

What's your basis that they are resting on their laurels? Most of their tactics this generation have been anything but especially when you look at Wiifit and other products that isn't resting on their laurels. Keep hoping the competition does something game changing the last 3 years have shown otherwise.

I did not say they have been resting on their laurels this entire generation. Don't put words in my mouth or change my statement

I said they cannot afford to rest on their laurels for the remainder of the generation (another 2-3yrs) by only putting out software, esp not while 360 and PS3 will be dropping the bombs come this holiday


Who is HOPING anything?!? I'm saying that you cannot expect anything from the future so the best thing is to hope for the best, BUT prepare for the worse, and worse case scenario (for Nintendo) is NATAL and Wand are HUGE hits. Being caught with your pants down is how you get fucked, and it's exactly what happened to EVERYONE in this industry who though the Wii was going to be a joke and a failure.

 

[Kenka]

jvm, for your next article, could you focus on :

- mean price of both HD consoles sold in December
- money made by Nintendo on software (hopefully with breakdown in DS and Wii SW sales)
- sales amount for some high-profile software on all plateforms ?

That would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance

 

[Eteric Rice]

As said above, I do think there a lot of the software quality discrepancy from third parties boils down to the fact that the more talented teams at these companies want to make 360/PS3 games and not Wii games.

Likely.

I think another problem is that over the years developers have been conditioned to make games in the same direction. Everything you see now adays is action/shooter/fantasy rpg. And while a lot of those games are good, they still follow that same direction.

That's why I love Boom Blox. Steven Spielberg, while being a movie director, hasn't been conditioned to make games in the same vein as developers have. So I think it was a bit easier for him to come up with that idea.

Hell, Zelda came to be simply because Mr. Miyamoto loved to explore as a child. Pokemon came to be because Satoshi Tajiri loved to collect bugs as a kid. Boom Blox came to be because Spielberg used to love building things with blocks, and then knocking them down.

I think the best games come from our own life experiences. If you can project what makes the things you do in life fun into a game, you may have a hit on your hands.

I think most developers have forgotten this. It makes me wonder what would happen if you asked a normal, everyday joe to come up with a video game idea.

 

[gerg]

Because it would be less useful to discern if people would be more or less prone to shell out more money to buy a sequel.
Plot-driven games can be completely non-linear and exhaust their content pretty fast, but if they're good they'll left people wanting for more (they would want to know how the plot develops, and so on).
On the other hand, some linear plot-driven games could exhaust their concept (especially if they're part of an overcrowded genre that allows little room for experimentation) pretty fast, and people wouldn't want to buy a sequel. Notable example: RE Darkside Chronicles.

Hmm... I'll need to think about this.

As I said, I don't think that the distinction between a game's concept and a game's content is a very clear or real one. Although, I agree that lots of games have both linear and non-linear elements, so that distinction may not be entirely useful either.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

FIFA.

Sorry, 3. Still doesn't change what I said.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

really..? look at the ODST sales and Hao Wars sales.. Halo isnt that big anymore...

Except, Halo Reach is Halo 4. ODST is a $60 expansion (it's actually called Halo 3: ODST), and Halo Wars is an RTS.

Banking on it outselling COD7 and a number of other games is madness, though it will certainly sell better than Halo 3.

no because obviously it is a Wii and GC game.. its just that the wii game came out on wii launch and about two weeks later on the GC.. so its a current gen game.. (like RE4 Wii edition which is a current gen game as well unlike RE4 GC or RE4 PS2..)

anyway.. i guess your right.. the 2004 E3 conference wasnt about the wii..

RE4 and Twilight Princess are ports of GCN games.

 

[Jocchan]

Hmm... I'll need to think about this.

As I said, I don't think that the distinction between a game's concept and a game's content is a very clear or real one. Although, I agree that lots of games have both linear and non-linear elements, so that distinction may not be entirely useful either.

Considering how even the biggest publishers often screw up royally with their sequels, I believe it's not one of the easiest subjects to discuss :lol

 

[gerg]

Considering how even the biggest publishers often screw up royally with their sequels, I believe it's not one of the easiest subjects to discuss :lol

I think the general rule of thumb with IPs not targeted at "core" gamers is to offer something different rather than something more.

... Although, thinking about it, the distinction between "different" and "more" doesn't seem to be very clear either. :lol

 

[Kenka]

Wants to have a word with you.

Damn. Forgot about this cute boy.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I'm not sure if this point has been touched on before but aren't some devs just not willing to go to Wii because it's not powerful enough to support the game they want to make? (or it is, but they'll have to cut a lot of corners to make the game "work" on the Wii).

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I'm not sure if this point has been touched on before but aren't some devs just not willing to go to Wii because it's not powerful enough to support the game they want to make? (or it is, but they'll have to cut a lot of corners to make the game "work" on the Wii).

The only devs that have said that have had their games ported to the Wii already. Though it should be assumed that if the Wii were as powerful as the 360 or PS3 that wouldn't be a problem, not because of some bullshit "vision", but because it would be dirt cheap to cross port.

 

[obaidr]

Except, Halo Reach is Halo 4. ODST is a $60 expansion (it's actually called Halo 3: ODST), and Halo Wars is an RTS.

Banking on it outselling COD7 and a number of other games is madness, though it will certainly sell better than Halo 3.



RE4 and Twilight Princess are ports of GCN games.

can we actually call a GC game coming out for Wii a port? Isnt something like the "game of the year" edition then a port? Are there any graphical upgrades or any other kind of upgrades except changing the way the game is controlled? I am just asking. Is the God of War collection a port? I have my difficulties calling it so. For me a Port is something like Bioshock or any other game coming out for Xbox and then released for PS3 or other way around.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

what's your issue, with the concept or the math?

I like the concept, and the math is fine. It's the leaps taken afterwards that get to me.

It is much closer than an integer in common. The variation between that rate of game purchases for each console comes out (or did last time I worked it out) at less than one game in three years - it is a tiny difference and well within the range of error in the sales figures.

So "exact same" is about the best way of putting it.

Oh god you even admit it. Exactly what kind of variation would it take for you to not dismiss it? Exactly the same means... the same... exactly. Yes, the starting figures are fuzzy at best but that doesn't mean you should throw vasoline on the whole thing and call it a wash.

I was going to correct you, but I see I've been beaten to it multiple times. Instead I'd like to ask, since you're obviously not offended by the calculation itself, which is correct and as accurate as official NPD data, what does offend you about it? Are you angry at the idea that "casual" Wii owners might buy as many games as the "hardcore" system owners? That's pure fact, except for the "casual" and "hardcore" bits, those are speculation.

:lol Yea bub you totally got me. The distinction you are making is idiotic. For every "hardcore" system owner you are no doubt supremely jealous of, there's three fools content with Halo and Madden. Or worse, Call of Duty and NCAA. Or even worse MLB2k. Generalizations about a userbase is stoooopit.

And actually I recant my bitching. If all you are trying to do is disprove the myth that Wii owners buy slowerly enough to justify an argument about then there is nothing wrong at all. It's just whitewashing the whole thing and saying the numbers are exact gets under my skin when A) we didn't have exact numbers in the first place and B) even a pitiful difference like one game in three years represents dozens of millions of sales.

 

[Neo C.]

Miss the porn.gif

And like I said many times: Of course Nintendo cares about third parties - more third parties hits mean more easy profit for Nintendo. Though they don't care so much that they would moneyhatting dozens of third party titles.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Except, Halo Reach is Halo 4. ODST is a $60 expansion (it's actually called Halo 3: ODST), and Halo Wars is an RTS.

Banking on it outselling COD7 and a number of other games is madness, though it will certainly sell better than Halo 3.



RE4 and Twilight Princess are ports of GCN games.

Halo is in the decline stages of its product cycle. The days of it hanging with Call of Duty (which is nearing its "peak" stage) are long over.

If I were Microsoft, I'd be very reluctant to continue mining the franchise. There's only so much more the userbase will bear, especially sonce ODST brought almost nothing new to the table.

 

[boiled goose]

jvm, for your next article, could you focus on :

- mean price of both HD consoles sold in December
- money made by Nintendo on software (hopefully with breakdown in DS and Wii SW sales)
- sales amount for some high-profile software on all plateforms ?

That would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance

It would be interesting to see total software sales for each platform, (maybe even have a third/first party split for nintendo consoles?) both units and revenue totals would also shed some light.

Also, some analysis on software with peripherals!

 

[kame-sennin]

Making a few assumptions here (maybe rash but as good as any) - that each Wii has 2-3 people play it, that the Wii demographic roughly reflects the overall population except for skewing towards families and higher incomes and away from single young men ... chances are that a third of the investors have played a Wii with some regularity.

They may not be as uninformed as we (or the CEOs) think. I look forward to some interesting shareholder meetings.

I was going to put a caveat right where you bolded, but I was trying not to be too wordy. What I should have said is that they don't understand the internal politics of video game culture like we do, so they're not going to interrupt Riccitello and say "bu bu RE4 sold and it's pretty hardcore!" When Riccitello says he that DS: E is targeted at the hardcore, shareholders are going to take his word for it.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Halo is in the decline stages of its product cycle. The days of it hanging with Call of Duty (which is nearing its "peak" stage) are long over.

If I were Microsoft, I'd be very reluctant to continue mining the franchise. There's only so much more the userbase will bear, especially sonce ODST brought almost nothing new to the table.

I wonder if anyone made this argument after Super Mario Strikers came out.

 

[jetjevons]

It would be interesting to see total software sales for each platform, (maybe even have a third/first party split for nintendo consoles?) both units and revenue totals would also shed some light.

Also, some analysis on software with peripherals!

I'd be very interested to see software revenue totals (as opposed to units sold) per platform also.

 

[boiled goose]

I wonder if anyone made this argument after Super Mario Strikers came out.

ummm.
I guess you are implying Reach is a mainline franchise while ODST was a spinoff?
That might be the case? but the difference is less clear since we are comparing two shooters with the halo name as supposed to a mario sports game with a mainline platformer... (and we have trends on how both of these sell, meanwhile there is little evidence of how a "mainline" halo will sell after one or possibly two spinoffs...)

You might have a point to make, but you lessen the value of your point by using a really dumb example...

 

[ggnoobIGN]

I wonder if anyone made this argument after Super Mario Strikers came out.

I'm not saying what Halo is or isn't, but we should all know by now that Mario is a whole fucking different breed than anything else. The rules don't apply to the franchise.

 

[farnham]

I wonder if anyone made this argument after Super Mario Strikers came out.

yeah back then mario was in a worse shape then now.. its nsmb on DS really that rejuvenated the game commercially and Galaxy that established it as the top franchise in the industry in terms of quality...

and mario isnt really a series or franchise... its similar to the wii xx titles.. its just nintendos main character 2d platformer, 3d platformer, sports, kart, RPG, party games with the insanely popular character mario in it..

 

[botticus]

Oh god you even admit it. Exactly what kind of variation would it take for you to not dismiss it? Exactly the same means... the same... exactly. Yes, the starting figures are fuzzy at best but that doesn't mean you should throw vasoline on the whole thing and call it a wash.

You'd make a big uproar if two games sold within 1k of each other in the next NPD and people called them "equal" wouldn't you?

 

[DayShallCome]

I like the concept, and the math is fine. It's the leaps taken afterwards that get to me.


Oh god you even admit it. Exactly what kind of variation would it take for you to not dismiss it? Exactly the same means... the same... exactly. Yes, the starting figures are fuzzy at best but that doesn't mean you should throw vasoline on the whole thing and call it a wash.
:lol Yea bub you totally got me. The distinction you are making is idiotic. For every "hardcore" system owner you are no doubt supremely jealous of, there's three fools content with Halo and Madden. Or worse, Call of Duty and NCAA. Or even worse MLB2k. Generalizations about a userbase is stoooopit.

And actually I recant my bitching. If all you are trying to do is disprove the myth that Wii owners buy slowerly enough to justify an argument about then there is nothing wrong at all. It's just whitewashing the whole thing and saying the numbers are exact gets under my skin when A) we didn't have exact numbers in the first place and B) even a pitiful difference like one game in three years represents dozens of millions of sales.

I don't totally see where you're coming from. Are you saying that NPD numbers are fuzzy? Or something else?

 

[phisheep]

I was going to put a caveat right where you bolded, but I was trying not to be too wordy. What I should have said is that they don't understand the internal politics of video game culture like we do, so they're not going to interrupt Riccitello and say "bu bu RE4 sold and it's pretty hardcore!" When Riccitello says he that DS: E is targeted at the hardcore, shareholders are going to take his word for it.

See your point. But as a shareholder I'm not going to be interested in internal politics - what I might do, though, is stand up at the meeting and say "that's all very well John - but why aren't you making games for me".

 

[Son of Godzilla]

You'd make a big uproar if two games sold within 1k of each other in the next NPD and people called them "equal" wouldn't you?

There was a big to do about Arkham PS3 finally outselling the 360 version after two or three months when the total difference was like 4k. I think that would be close enough to within 1k a month for you.

 

[Jokeropia]

For fucks sake stop with this idiotic "statistic". I love how we are now at "exact same" instead of "well, the results of this maths I did on some fuzzy data have an integer in common, they must be about the same".

People have already responded for me, so I'll just laugh at you. :lol

It's just whitewashing the whole thing and saying the numbers are exact gets under my skin when A) we didn't have exact numbers in the first place and B) even a pitiful difference like one game in three years represents dozens of millions of sales.

A) Actually, the numbers are as exact as any numbers relating to sales figures are gonna get. Based on the total software sales LTDs released by NPD a few months back, the buying rates are as follows:

X360: 0.091 games per week
Wii: 0.091 games per week
PS3: 0.092 games per week

This kills your B) point as well. Wii's number is exactly the same as the 360's (bitching about semantics is silly as the margin of error is small) and a tiny tiny amount smaller than PS3's. It's not even one game every three years, it's less than one game every 19 years.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

This kills your B) point as well. Wii's number is exactly the same as the 360's (bitching about semantics is silly as the margin of error is small) and a tiny tiny amount smaller than PS3's. It's not even one game every three years, it's less than one game every 19 years.

:lol Oh god you are a wonderful person. I mean really, I hope you can find some way to respond again.