Support NeoGAF

[Flying_Phoenix]

Some did quite well relative to the size of the PS3 userbase, but none did all that great in absolute terms. But for every one that did proportionally better, there must have been one that did proportionally worse. The attach rate was never particularly high. (Though not particularly low, either.)

I remember there were some that met underexpecetations but they were far fewer then those that met or surpassed them.

 

[Omar Ismail]

Now, please note that I'm not saying that this makes casual games "better" by some objective standard, I'm simply saying that empirical evidence suggests that it's actually more challenging to produce a big casual hit than it is a big hardcore hit.

Oh for sure it's more difficult. I think Wii Sports is the most important title to be released in the last 5 years. And I don't mean from a sales perspective, but rather the design concepts introduced. It's absolutely brilliant.

 

[DayShallCome]

Some did quite well relative to the size of the PS3 userbase, but none did all that great in absolute terms. But for every one that did proportionally better, there must have been one that did proportionally worse. The attach rate was never particularly high. (Though not particularly low, either.)

Perhaps someone can dig up the numbers, but PS3 has often been 3rd among the 3 consoles in regards to tie ratio. That's particularly bad when you consider that Wii has sold at such a quick pace (high sales bring down tie ratio because the average time of console ownership decreases).

 

[DeeVoc]

On one hand MS is selling tons of softwares on his machine even if the 360 suffer from piracy on the other hand Sony have only 1 game in the top 20 with a system that can't be pirated.
I don't see another explanation besides that Casual are buying PS3 more than 360.

 

[Arde5643]

Now, please note that I'm not saying that this makes casual games "better" by some objective standard, I'm simply saying that empirical evidence suggests that it's actually more challenging to produce a big casual hit than it is a big hardcore hit. I'm pointing this out because Omar's argument earlier relies on Microsoft being capable of creating industry driving casual software, and I'd argue it's very unlikely that they can, given that almost no one but Nintendo seems capable of doing so.

Very good post.

If we think about it, the challenges faced when creating a high tier casual games are quite massive:
1) Accessibility : you have to think of how accessible the game is to a different range of groups of people, not only by their gender and ages, also their ethnicity, culture, and all sorts of differences (notice how Ninty games rarely, if ever, offend anyone)
2) Low-market/up-market appeal: notice how core gamers have no issue trying out WiiSports/WiiFit, but will not ever want to touch Imaginez series games.

Just these 2 items alone present enormous challenge in designing a game that can work with anyone of any age, gender, ethnicity, and whatever else you want to throw in the mix.
I'm pretty sure there are many more hurdles to jump in order to create games like WiiSports or WiiFit, or even Layton.

I believe of all 3rd party vendors, it is Level 5 so far who has captured the Nintendo magic on their Layton game.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

Perhaps someone can dig up the numbers, but PS3 has often been 3rd among the 3 consoles in regards to tie ratio. That's particularly bad when you consider that Wii has sold at such a quick pace (high sales bring down tie ratio because the average time of console ownership decreases).

Actually since 2008 was so much better than 2007 for both consoles, you'd expect them both to have lower attach rates. The fact that the Wii sold much better in both years doesn't enter into it since attach rates involve dividing by the overall install base.

 

[Version 3.0]

But look at the 360. They have always sold games well. Every big game from them(really from launch) has automatically sold over a million). That is not the case with Sony. Not even close.

That's easy to say now, because you look at the (very large) list of million-sellers and say, "well, those were all the big games". But there were some that didn't catch on with the Xbox Live "game of the month" hive mind, they're just forgotten now.

We never see the big picture, but I suspect that Xbox software sales are just as top heavy as they are front-loaded, with a smaller "middle class" of decent-selling games than a console with a broader demographic would have. I'd be interested to see, for example, how the 360 compares to the PS2 in terms of million-sellers in the first 3 years (probably does well) and in terms of total software sales (probably does poorly). But I don't have enough interest to scrounge around for the data.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Wow, Wii is a software beast.

PS3 sftware on the other hand. That's even worse news than the hardware numbers.

360 software figures are benefiting greatly from the better titles announced for it.


:lol @RockBand 2 Wii. Poor Harmonix/MTV.

 

[Vinci]

I think this has to do with how much testing Nintendo does of its games. It doesn't spend a TON of money on graphics and other such things; rather, it places that budgeting into going through a large series of tests on its software and then marketing said software appropriately.

The company's skillset is really very different from the others.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Dovetailing with Evlar's point, I think it's worth noting that empirical evidence suggests that the games we think of as "casual," with Wii Sports and Wii Fit being headliners, are apparently much more difficult to make than "hardcore" games, contrary to popular belief.

The evidence of this is in the sales figures. Virtually every major publisher is capable of producing multiple "hardcore" hits a year, from the recently venerated EA with Madden and Warhammer to the now loathed Activision with Call of Duty to smaller companies like Epic or Bethesda to Japanese companies like Konami and Capcom. The fact that so many companies of varying sizes, from different cultures and of different backgrounds can all produce games with high review scores and strong sales suggests that it isn't very difficult to make these types of games.

By contrast, virtually no one outside of Nintendo (Activision being the sole exception with Guitar Hero, I think) has been capable of capturing the "casual" demographic in a consist and exceptional manner. This suggests that it is difficult to do: if it were easy, everyone would be doing it. Even Ubisoft, the perpetuator of the Imagine and Petz lines on the DS, has never really seen an exceptional success with any individual game: to my knowledge, none of these games has individually sold more than 5 million, and I'd wager that only a handful have passed 3 million, if that. Their success on the platform comes from sheer volume of SKUs, not from a few SKUs selling enldessly a la Brain Age, Nintendogs, Brain Age 2, and Animal Crossing.

Now, please note that I'm not saying that this makes casual games "better" by some objective standard, I'm simply saying that empirical evidence suggests that it's actually more challenging to produce a big casual hit than it is a big hardcore hit. I'm pointing this out because Omar's argument earlier relies on Microsoft being capable of creating industry driving casual software, and I'd argue it's unlikely that they can, given that almost no one but Nintendo seems capable of doing so.

I was gonna type a lengthy reply to Omar but this post applies to his hard on for the Xmote.

The Wii is sum of it's parts. Get one thing wrong and the whole house of card you are trying to replicate collapses. And software is one part where everyone else who tried t copy this 'casual', including MS(Especially MS!) has gone wrong.

 

[Luckyman]

The fact that MS can't get any third party exclusives with the current state of PS3 software sales is an absolute failure by MS relations.

You know these companies don't care if a PS3 game is in the top 20 or 30 NPD like gaf does. They care about raw numbers.

When your competitors combined have 10M+ more machines it´s pretty hard to get multiple spots a month there. So saying PS3 software sales are horrible based on this chart is flawed.

 

[Arde5643]

You know these companies don't care if a PS3 game is in the top 20 or 30 NPD like gaf does. They care about raw numbers.

When your competitors combined have 10M+ more machines it´s pretty hard to get multiple spots a month there. So saying PS3 software sales are horrible based on this chart is flawed.

So is PS3 software sales as an aggregate horrible or not?

 

[Opiate]

So is PS3 software sales as an aggregate horrible or not?

We don't really know, Arde. One could say they're horrible simply because of the install base, and I think there is quite a bit of fairness to that.

But if we're talking relative to install base, it's difficult to tell. Given that the PS3 is outnumbered 2:1 by both the 360 and Wii, it shouldn't be very surprising that it's struggling to put more than a game or two in the top 20.

The only way to really know is total software, which we don't have. If the PS3 has about 1/2 the software sold in January compared to the 360 or Wii, it's okay. Even within a range of 5-10%, that's fine. If it's substantially lower than this -- say, the PS3's software was 1/3 or less of the 360 or Wii total for the month -- then yes, the software is a problem outside of the hardware install base.

In the past, when we've gotten full numbers for a month in the US or worldwide (e.g. in FRs), it seems that the PS3's attach rate is normal. Not great, not bad. If that attach rate has held in January (and I would assume it has, as such things don't tend to fluctuate wildly), then 1 game in the top 20 is par for the course for a system that has a normal attach rate and a considerably lower install base.

 

[Yes Boss!]

Oh for sure it's more difficult. I think Wii Sports is the most important title to be released in the last 5 years. And I don't mean from a sales perspective, but rather the design concepts introduced. It's absolutely brilliant.

5 Years?! It is probably one of the most important games of this industry's three-decade-long history.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

We don't really know, Arde. One could say they're horrible simply because of the install base, and I think there is quite a bit of fairness to that.

But if we're talking relative to install base, it's difficult to tell. Given that the PS3 is outnumbered 2:1 by both the 360 and Wii, it shouldn't be very surprising that it's struggling to put more than a game or two in the top 20.

The only way to really know is total software, which we don't have. If the PS3 has about 1/2 the software sold in January compared to the 360 or Wii, it's okay. Even within a range of 5-10%, that's fine. If it's substantially lower than this -- say, the PS3's software was 1/3 or less of the 360 or Wii total for the month -- then yes, the software is a problem outside of the hardware install base.

In the past, when we've gotten full numbers for a month in the US or worldwide (e.g. in FRs), it seems that the PS3's attach rate is normal. Not great, not bad. If that attach rate has held in January (and I would assume it has, as such things don't tend to fluctuate wildly), then 1 game in the top 20 is par for the course for a system that has a normal attach rate and a considerably lower install base.

I completely agree with this.

 

[boiled goose]

Wow, Wii is a software beast.

PS3 sftware on the other hand. That's even worse news than the hardware numbers.

360 software figures are benefiting greatly from the better titles announced for it.


:lol @RockBand 2 Wii. Poor Harmonix/MTV.

Rock band 2 on wii is doing fine and will do even better as time passes.
Rock 2 is off to a slow start for several reasons. releasing 23? december. low supply through january. 99 dollar rock band 1. GH heavily established on wii. (and releasing in same time frame as other consoles)

im sure it will most likely be in the top 30 and it was in top 30 (or top 10 for wii) during december.

Its a quality product, better than ghwt because of how integrated online and DLC are. word of mouth will make sure it sells. I dont think it will sell too many special editions though since instruments are available for cheap with rb1 and ppl already have ghwt.
sales will pick up/not drop off.

the problem is it was not on wii owners minds during the holidays cuz it was not available. ghwt took all the hype.

 

[boiled goose]

5 Years?! It is probably one of the most important games of this industry's three-decade-long history.

it is strange to think about , but it will (if not already) be the most owned/played console game in history.

 

[Slavik81]

Perhaps someone can dig up the numbers, but PS3 has often been 3rd among the 3 consoles in regards to tie ratio. That's particularly bad when you consider that Wii has sold at such a quick pace (high sales bring down tie ratio because the average time of console ownership decreases).

It was in 3rd place, but not by a large margin.

 

[Kilrogg]

The Wii is sum of it's parts. Get one thing wrong and the whole house of card you are trying to replicate collapses. And software is one part where everyone else who tried t copy this 'casual', including MS(Especially MS!) has gone wrong.

Nitpicking here, but I think you're trying to say that the Wii is a whole. If it is only the sum of its parts, then getting one thing wrong isn't dramatic. If it is a whole, then yeah, you've got to do everything right.

Also, as usual, Opiate saying the truth as it is. Never change, Opiate, you're one of GAF's finest members.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

So is PS3 software sales as an aggregate horrible or not?

Sony has not released their spin on the results for this NPD. That's all you really need to know.

 

[Bizzyb]

We don't really know, Arde. One could say they're horrible simply because of the install base, and I think there is quite a bit of fairness to that.

But if we're talking relative to install base, it's difficult to tell. Given that the PS3 is outnumbered 2:1 by both the 360 and Wii, it shouldn't be very surprising that it's struggling to put more than a game or two in the top 20.

The only way to really know is total software, which we don't have. If the PS3 has about 1/2 the software sold in January compared to the 360 or Wii, it's okay. Even within a range of 5-10%, that's fine. If it's substantially lower than this -- say, the PS3's software was 1/3 or less of the 360 or Wii total for the month -- then yes, the software is a problem outside of the hardware install base.

In the past, when we've gotten full numbers for a month in the US or worldwide (e.g. in FRs), it seems that the PS3's attach rate is normal. Not great, not bad. If that attach rate has held in January (and I would assume it has, as such things don't tend to fluctuate wildly), then 1 game in the top 20 is par for the course for a system that has a normal attach rate and a considerably lower install base.

Their games are selling on average less than 100k a month, and these include the BIG games, i.e. LBP, Resistance, etc. I don't give a hoot what their install base is (btw, which at this point is large enough that sales should be higher than this anyways) The point is, the software is moving extremely sluggishly and there's no way to deny that. What does total software have to do with anything when their top selling game sold less than 113k? That right their is an indication of total software sales and it doesn't look good.

All you seem to be doing is making excuses for low software sales. This is not like the DS situation where there is SO much product and hardware that total software sales appear low because they are so heavily spread out among a large amount of product

 

[Oblivion]

You know these companies don't care if a PS3 game is in the top 20 or 30 NPD like gaf does. They care about raw numbers.

When your competitors combined have 10M+ more machines it´s pretty hard to get multiple spots a month there. So saying PS3 software sales are horrible based on this chart is flawed.

...I thought that's what people were talking about when they refer to PS3 software sales being bad.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Their games are selling on average less than 100k a month, and these include the BIG games, i.e. LBP, Resistance, etc. I don't give a hoot what their install base is (btw, which at this point is large enough that sales should be higher than this anyways) The point is, the software is moving extremely sluggishly and there's no way to deny that. What does total software have to do with anything when their top selling game sold less than 200k? That right their is an indication of total software sales and it doesn't look good.

All you seem to be doing is making excuses for low software sales. This is not like the DS situation where there is SO much product and hardware that total software sales appear low because they are so heavily spread out amount a large amount of product

We can't necessarily dismiss the PS3s sales though, which is what I think Opiate is getting it.

We know for sure that the PS3 is doing poorly in comparison with the 360 and Wii. What we don't know is how much PS3 software is actually moving (i.e.: whether it's 2-3 titles in the top 100 of 15-20, for example) as we don't have access to anything below the top 30 in recent months.

The PS3 is clearly getting squeezed out by its competition, and doing poorly in general. But we still don't know precisely how well, or how poorly the library is selling in relation to the userbase outside of the number of games sold within a set amount of places (in this case, the top 30).

I do think it makes sense to assert though, that no matter how the PS3's sales are performing now, they will assuredly get worse as the gen rolls on.

 

[Joe211]

We can't necessarily dismiss the PS3s sales though, which is what I think Opiate is getting it.

We know for sure that the PS3 is doing poorly in comparison with the 360 and Wii. What we don't know is how much PS3 software is actually moving (i.e.: whether it's 2-3 titles in the top 100 of 15-20, for example) as we don't have access to anything below the top 30 in recent months.

The PS3 is clearly getting squeezed out by its competition, and doing poorly in general. But we still don't know precisely how well, or how poorly the library is selling in relation to the userbase outside of the number of games sold within a set amount of places (in this case, the top 30).

I do think it makes sense to assert though, that no matter how the PS3's sales are performing now, they will assuredly get worse as the gen rolls on.

:lol

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

:lol

How's expecting certain trends that have been apparent since the systems launch a laughing matter?

 

[Sadist]

:lol

Well, getting worse is very blunt, but PS3 software seems to struggle at the moment. This could mean trouble for the future.

 

[Bizzyb]

We can't necessarily dismiss the PS3s sales though, which is what I think Opiate is getting it.

We know for sure that the PS3 is doing poorly in comparison with the 360 and Wii. What we don't know is how much PS3 software is actually moving (i.e.: whether it's 2-3 titles in the top 100 of 15-20, for example) as we don't have access to anything below the top 30 in recent months.

The PS3 is clearly getting squeezed out by its competition, and doing poorly in general. But we still don't know precisely how well, or how poorly the library is selling in relation to the userbase outside of the number of games sold within a set amount of places.

I do think it makes sense to assert though, that no matter how the PS3's sales are performing now, they will assuredly get worse as the gen rolls on.

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Last time I checked, PS3 had a userbase of more than 6 MILLION consoles sold in the US.
It's TOP selling game sold LESS than 113k units. How the HELL can that be ANYTHING but awful?? I'm not even putting 360 or Wii into the picture b/c quite frankly that's irrelevant.

Yes, they have higher install bases, but that still doesn't not account for the HIGHEST selling game to have sold sub 113k units, especially when more than 6 million people own the damn thing.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Last time I checked, PS3 had a userbase of more than 6 MILLION consoles sold in the US.
It's TOP selling game sold LESS than 113k units. How the HELL can that be ANYTHING but awful?? I'm not even putting 360 or Wii into the picture b/c quite frankly that's irrelevant.

Yes, they have higher install bases, but that still doesn't not account for the HIGHEST selling game to have sold sub 113k units, especially when more than 6 million people own the damn thing.

I think it's important to note how many titles managed to sell on a console as well as how much each title sold. If the PS3 is selling 25 titles in the top 100, I would say that that's better than selling 10 titles. It's not doing WELL if these titles aren't selling much individually, but without this info we can't specifically assert how well (or in this case, poorly) the PS3 s actually doing.

 

[Kolgar]

Consoles have ecosystems and they're either thriving or dying. It's hard to reverse direction either way. I love my Triples, but there's no denying that this is one troubled system that may see a lot more trouble ahead.

I'm really interested to see what the next generation will bring. If I were Microsoft, I might try to head off Ninty with a "grown-up" Wii with HD graphics and robust online and movie services. Put some clever twist on the waggle wand and make Wii look like the toy that it is.

Too bad for Microsoft, Ninty's probably thinking the same for its next system.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I think it's important to note how many titles managed to sell on a console as well as how much each title sold. If the PS3 is selling 25 titles in the top 100, I would say that that's better than selling 10 titles. It's not doing WELL if these titles aren't selling much individually, but without this info we can't specifically assert how well (or in this case, poorly) the PS3 s actually doing.

In an age where the average game costs $20 million to create (and that's admittingly being pretty conservative), selling under 100k isn't exactly acceptable by any means. The DS can get away with this because most titles are either very low budget or have Japan as their main focus, the games on the PS3 are anything but those things.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

In an age where they average game costs $20 million to create, selling under 100k isn't exactly acceptable any means. The DS can get away with this because most titles are either very low budget or have Japan as their main focus, the games on the PS3 are anything but those things.

I'm not saying that it is acceptable. I'm saying that we don't know to what degree the PS3 is failing on its own. How exactly is the software selling? Do we start to see a mass of PS3 software in the 40 spots? 60's? 90's? Did the PS3 only have one game in the top 100? We don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Now I'm not saying we can't say the PS3 is doing poorly because we don't know these things, quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't know exactly how poorly the console is doing relative to itself.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I'm not saying that it is acceptable. I'm saying that we don't know to what degree the PS3 is failing on its own. How exactly is the software selling? Do we start to see a mass of PS3 software in the 40 spots? 60's? 90's? Did the PS3 only have one game in the top 100? We don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Now I'm not saying we can't say the PS3 is doing poorly because we don't know these things, quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't know exactly how poorly the console is doing relative to itself.

Did we get a top 100 NPD for 2008? That would be really interesting about now.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I'm not saying that it is acceptable. I'm saying that we don't know to what degree the PS3 is failing on its own. How exactly is the software selling? Do we start to see a mass of PS3 software in the 40 spots? 60's? 90's? Did the PS3 only have one game in the top 100? We don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Now I'm not saying we can't say the PS3 is doing poorly because we don't know these things, quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't know exactly how poorly the console is doing relative to itself.

Either way it's going to be between the lines of "horrible" and "next to nothing". What Bizzyb and I are trying to get across is that software sales on the PS3 are so low that it is irrelevant with the rankings of the titles, because past this point it is just flatout bad.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

PS3 could only manage ONE game in the top 20 in sales for the month?

ONE?

REALLY?

WTF is up, PS3 owners.

 

[HK-47]

Either way it's going to be between the lines of "horrible" and "next to nothing". Either way it's an embarrassment.

Thats an unfounded perception. We dont know.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Thats an unfounded perception. We dont know.

So all other titles but 1 selling under 100k (I could probably put under 90 due to the fact that WaW is at #11) isn't horrid or very bad? No matter how you spin it the software sales are in a very bad state right now. Once you get past a certain level it doesn't matter if you sink any lower.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Either way it's going to be between the lines of "horrible" and "next to nothing". What Bizzyb and I are trying to get across is that software sales on the PS3 are so low that it is irrelevant with the rankings of the titles, because past this point it is just flatout bad.

I understand that; however I believe that we still have to try to understand to what degree the PS3 is performing, even in the poor state that it appears here.

Let's put it this way:

I would understand the smaller numbers for each individual game if the userbase was split between multiple games. That points to a console doing poorly in the absolute sense, but still selling somewhat to the consumers that invested in the console. The alternative is a console that is selling a few titles to barely anyone, which paints a much different picture; The people who don't have it aren't buying the system, and the people who do aren't buying the games. While these are both bad, one scenario is FAR worse than the other.

 

[Version 3.0]

I'm not saying that it is acceptable. I'm saying that we don't know to what degree the PS3 is failing on its own. How exactly is the software selling? Do we start to see a mass of PS3 software in the 40 spots? 60's? 90's? Did the PS3 only have one game in the top 100? We don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Now I'm not saying we can't say the PS3 is doing poorly because we don't know these things, quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't know exactly how poorly the console is doing relative to itself.

There's only one question worth answering, really, and it's one we also don't have nearly enough info to answer: are PS3 games turning a worthwhile profit?

If they're not, we'll see the results soon enough. But as long as there's a PS3 version of most games, we can assume PS3 software sales are "good enough".

 

[fernoca]

NPD threads are always funny..
I still remember when "the PSP was owning the NDS in hardware sales"..and when "the PS3 was beating the Xbox 360 in the US and that it was all over for the 360"..

If one thing this threads (and sales) have shown is that there's no trend..one month your hardware/software may be failing, the other may be a hit...

Yet, so many people waste time arguing, creating theories, debates...essays..about possibilities and trends..that, yeah..it's funny.. :lol

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Let's put it this way:

I would understand the smaller numbers for each individual game if the userbase was split between multiple games. That points to a console doing poorly in the absolute sense, but still selling somewhat to the consumers that invested in the console. The alternative is a console that is selling a few titles to barely anyone, which paints a much different picture; The people who don't have it aren't buying the system, and the people who do aren't buying the games. While these are both bad, one scenario is FAR worse than the other.

I have a reply for this but I'd appreciate if you describe it further so I don't start climbing up the wrong hill.

 

[yoopoo]

PS3 could only manage ONE game in the top 20 in sales for the month?

ONE?

REALLY?

WTF is up, PS3 owners.

Same story last month...same game too.

1. WII PLAY W/ REMOTE WII NINTENDO OF AMERICA
2. CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR* 360 ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
3. WII FIT WII NINTENDO OF AMERICA
4. MARIO KART WII NINTENDO OF AMERICA
5. GUITAR HERO WORLD TOUR* WII ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
6. GEARS OF WAR 2* 360 MICROSOFT
7. LEFT 4 DEAD 360 ELECTRONIC ARTS
8. MARIO KART NDS NINTENDO OF AMERICA
9. CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR PS3 ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
10. ANIMAL CROSSING: CITY FOLK* WII NINTENDO OF AMERICA
11. WII MUSIC WII NINTENDO OF AMERICA
12. NEW SUPER MARIO BROS NDS NINTENDO OF AMERICA
13. PERSONAL TRAINER: COOKING NDS NINTENDO OF AMERICA
14. FALLOUT 3* 360 BETHESDA SOFTWORKS
15. CLUB PENGUIN: ELITE PENGUIN FORCE NDS DISNEY INTERACTIVE STUDIOS
16. LINK’S CROSSBOW TRAINING WII NINTENDO OF AMERICA
17. GUITAR HERO WORLD TOUR* PS2 ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
18. MADDEN NFL 09* 360 ELECTRONIC ARTS
19. CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR WII ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
20. SHAUN WHITE SNOWBOARDING: ROAD TRIP WII UBISOFT

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Thats an unfounded perception. We dont know.

We know that no PS3 title sold more than 113k last month.

 

[Gaborn]

Let's put it this way:

I would understand the smaller numbers for each individual game if the userbase was split between multiple games. That points to a console doing poorly in the absolute sense, but still selling somewhat to the consumers that invested in the console. The alternative is a console that is selling a few titles to barely anyone, which paints a much different picture; The people who don't have it aren't buying the system, and the people who do aren't buying the games. While these are both bad, one scenario is FAR worse than the other.

Yes and no. The first scenario is significantly better to SONY and from a bragging perspective, but only matters to developers because it sets the level a non MGS4/AAAAAAAA title will sell around and that to a greater degree will likely dictate budgets and resources put into these games going forward.

The second scenario is also great for Sony in some ways because it potentially suggests that blu-ray movies are selling on the system... but that only matters if long term that involves a large number of blu-ray movies. The down side is it would do nothing for game developers.

 

[Arde5643]

We know that no PS3 title sold more than 113k last month.

Ouch.

 

[Version 3.0]

We know that no PS3 title sold more than 113k last month.

You guys are being a bit too dramatic. I mean, we also know that out of the hundreds of games available, all but 4 Wii games sold less than 113k, and all but 4 360 games sold less than 100k.

The top 10 just isn't enough info to draw many conclusions from. You make it sound like there should be more than 10 games in the top 10.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

You guys are being a bit too dramatic. I mean, we also know that out of the hundreds of games available, all but 4 Wii games sold less than 113k, and all but 4 360 games sold less than 100k.

The top 10 just isn't enough info to draw many conclusions from. You make it sound like there should be more than 10 games in the top 10.

Consider these 3 things:

1) Budget for games on certain platforms

2) Recent releases and their expectations

3) Comparison to other consoles moving the software of said game

And it's the top 20 not top 10.

 

[JudgeN]

I realize this is an NPD thread but when it comes to software worldwide is what matter. While the PS3 isn't doing AMAZING, worldwide it seems to be doing alright enough to justify ports.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

I realize this is an NPD thread but software sales but when it comes to software worldwide is what matter. While the PS3 isn't doing AMAZING, worldwide it seems to be doing alright enough to justify ports.

Oh, how have the mighty have fallen.

 

[Version 3.0]

1) Budget for games on certain platforms

Most PS3 budgets are shared with the 360 release, or may even be considered as just a "port" budget. That's up to the publisher.

2) Recent releases and their expectations

Expectations that we don't know, most likely. Publishers are well aware of how sales trends are going.

3) Comparison to other consoles moving the software of said game

That hardly matters. If I release a game and make $10 million in profit from one version and $2 million from another, I'm going to keep making both versions, aren't I?

As I said above, if PS3 games aren't worth it to publishers, we'll find out. It could be the case, sure. But you're calling a horse dead when all you know is that it runs slowly.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I have a reply for this but I'd appreciate if you describe it further so I don't start climbing up the wrong hill.

I'll try.

The question i'm asking here ultimately is "are PS3 owners buying the games?"

The PS3 right now has one major established problem; people aren't buying PS3s. This we know already. What we don't know is how diverse the PS3 gamers' tastes are. Basically, are PS3 owners content to buy 1 or 2 games, or do they typically buy a selection of games for the console?

If we saw a hypothetical "top 100" and CoDWaW was one of six titles in the entire top 100, we could say empirically "the PS3 isn't selling to the userbase (read: PS3 owners). On the contrary, if we saw a more appreciable number of titles in the top 100, we could assert that what PS3 owners there are are supporting the console. It's not GOOD support as the numbers are clearly deficient, but it is better in comparison to the alternative, which is Ps3 owners not buying games for the console that they own.

Or to put it another way:

The console sells like shit, but at least PS3 owners are buying software for it.