Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

First off, do you think that will be so world wide if you only count the PlayStation and Xbox consoles. The Wii and Wii U can be safely be excluded because they don't pull the same types of games. By that I mean that the Wii U's tanking won't have any effect on Activision's decision to make Call of Duty or Destiny. So yes you can say that the overall market will shrink, but it's effects won't be evenly distributed.

Second, we have seen how price sensitive these consoles can be. This generation is the first where every hardware maker did not subsidize their console. That is going to have an impact on sale. If the consoles had come out $100 cheaper or had $100 worth of extra hardware at the same price, sales would have been much higher. What this means is that we'll have a delayed uptake as the prices naturally drop.

Third, continuing with the price theme, this console generation has existed entirely under a weakened economy after one of the biggest recessions in history. As/if that corrects itself console sales will rise.

Fourth, as I pointed out before there is a HUGE discrepancy in the number of console selling games out right now from the PS2 era. This could be a systemic problem due to the higher cost of developing games, so this one might not correct itself. However it could also be fluke. We could have been held back by the trend to make cross gen games, and remasters. Now that that is at an end we could start seeing more games released worthy of buying a new console to play.

Finally, both the XB1 and the PS4 will get a sales boost when they release Project Morpheus and HoloLens respectively. Either or both have the potential to hit fad status and sell like the Wii U's motion control or Kinect.

There are just way too many variable that we know will change to project a few month's worth of data out to the lifetime of this console generation.

Historically, all these attempts to suggest game changers are coming have fallen flat. It is nearly historically unprecedented for a system to dramatically change its course after 1.5-2 years on the market. At this point last generation, Wii was on pace to be the clear number 1, and PS3/360 were fighting a very close race (within 8 million of each other) for second place -- and that's exactly how the generation ended. People suggested that the Gamecube could turn things around, or that the Xbox could, but that never came close to materializing either.

It doesn't mean it can't happen this time, but most of the time when people think game changers are just on the horizon -- price drops, peripherals, what have you -- the best they've done in sustain sales in the long term, not alter the trajectory of the generation in significant ways. Possible, but I'm not betting on it.

 

[RexNovis]

that's hardly an absolute, using that for Xbox One in 2014 after January, you'd project 2820k maximum, and we all know it beat that easily

Clearly its not an absolute but it is a good indicator of just how much the two consoles under performed for the month given the expectations for the year as a whole.

 

[GamerJM]

which got very poor reviews but still managed to warrant an (also universally panned) sequel

http://www.gamerankings.com/wii/959883-red-steel-2/index.html

Red Steel 2 was the shit. Probably tied with Halo 3 ODST as having my favorite FPS campaign last-gen and might just have my favorite use of motion controls period.

 

[The_Dama]

Really surprised that games are selling more on Xbox One. Wounder why and how?

 

[CosmicQueso]

Okay, stop right here. I'm not saying there weren't some good games on the system. I'm asking what top tier talent was devoted to the Wii. You said publishers tried "everything they could." I suppose based on your askew answer to my question that you agree, publishers did not devote their top talent to the system?



How do we know this? I mean, Infinity Ward never made a game for Wii. Hardly anyone even sort of like Infinity Ward ever did. The closest example was Red Steel, which got very poor reviews but still managed to warrant an (also not particular well liked) sequel.



Harmonix did not develop for Wii. Again, the game was shrugged off to the second string developer. Red Octane did make games for the Wii, and as it turns out, Guitar Hero actually sold best on Wii.


Well, this is a very different statement. Were third parties "Ignoring the market entirely?" I'm not suggesting that. But "trying everything they could?" That seems like an enormous stretch. You seem to basically be conceding that virtually no one put any of their top talent on the system, which is pretty far away from "trying everything they can."

A lot of money was spent, a lot of development hours too.

But if the definition of trying is the placement of the recognized top tier talent off of the platforms they were recognized as being top talent for, to the Wii, then of course I have to concede that point.

But just to go with Infinity Ward... These guys were PC developers who ported COD2 over to the X360 just to see what would happen. Turns out they hit a 75% attach rate in 2005 and off they went. These were definitely not the guys to move to a motion control based, lower tech platform. Would have been a round peg in a square hole kind of deal. The Wii needed development that wasn't necessarily the A team on other platforms but rather a team that could make A level output on this very special, different platform.

Who knows. Had they been assigned to a Wii game, maybe they would have figured it out.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was some coordinated effort to deprioritize the Wii. If there was, I hope someone writes a book on it someday because it would be a real interesting read.

 

[AmaterasuOni]

Really surprised that games are selling more on Xbox One. Wounder why and how?

Sony have said multiple times that their digital sales have skyrocketed. NPD doesn't have track records for these.

 

[Opiate]

A lot of money was spent, a lot of development hours too.

But if the definition of trying is the placement of the recognized top tier talent off of the platforms they were recognized as being top talent for, to the Wii, then of course I have to concede that point.

Well, it is certainly a necessary caveat for "trying everything they could." I mean, we're struggling to name a single AAA, top tier developer at this point who developed even one game (let alone multiple!) for the Wii. I'm not even asking if all of them did, or even most of them did; we're struggling to name a single one. The best we've done so far is freakin' Red Octane, for goodness sakes (and I'll add another for you: Junction Point).

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was some coordinated effort to deprioritize the Wii. If there was, I hope someone writes a book on it someday because it would be a real interesting read.

Oh, I don't think it was a conspiracy against Nintendo or something. I think the Wii suffered the same fate that iOS has suffered and that Kinect suffered: despite the enormous success (particularly of iOS, of course, but Kinect got off to a roaring start too), most established publishers just didn't invest heavily in to those platforms. The only exception at all at this point would be EA, who didn't really invest in Kinect and invested in iOS by basically buying out already successful developers like Playfish. Activision, Take 2 and Ubisoft remain relatively or even entirely uninvested in iOS or Kinect.

I think there are lots of reasons for this, but one of those reasons is that these platforms don't play to their strengths. Activision's (and Ubisoft and Take 2 etc.) biggest strength is that they simply have a lot more money than anyone else does, and can afford to create development teams of 500 people or more. This advantage just doesn't matter very much on iOS, or on Kinect, or on Wii. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a basic economic concept; huge companies often have a disincentive to lower barriers to entry.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Well, it is certainly a necessary caveat for "trying everything they could." I mean, we're struggling to name a single AAA, top tier developer at this point. I'm not asking if all of them did, or even most of them did; we're struggling to name a single one.



Oh, I don't think it was a conspiracy or something. I think the Wii suffered the same fate that iOS has suffered and that Kinect suffered: despite the enormous success (particularly of iOS, of course, but Kinect got off to a roaring start too), most established publishers just didn't invest heavily in to those platforms. The only exception at all at this point would be EA, who didn't really invest in Kinect and invested in iOS by basically buying out already successful developers like Playfish. Activision, Take 2 and Ubisoft remain relatively uninvested in iOS.

I think there are lots of reasons for this, but one of those reasons is that it doesn't play to their strengths. Activision's (and Ubisoft and Take 2 etc.)'s biggest strength is that they simply have a lot more money than anyone else does, and create development teams of 500 people or more. This advantage just doesn't matter on iOS, or on Kinect, or on Wii. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a basic economic incentive; huge companies often have a disincentive to lower barriers to entry.

I hear you. Completely agree on your last point too.

I understand where you're coming from, thanks for explaining it a bit more deeply.

You also make a great point on the mobile side. The scale hurts the big pubs to even get going in a mobile market that thrives on rapid decision making and execution.

 

[mike4001_]

Sony have said multiple times that their digital sales have skyrocketed. NPD doesn't have track records for these.

OK, but I think the same would go for MS.

The % of digital vs. retail should approximately be the same for both consoles.

 

[mike4001_]

You ever tried searching for a game on the Xbone marketplace without using Kinect? Good grief.

Lol ?

The Search-Tile is right there on the Dashboard itself. Klick on it and type in the search phrase and you get your result.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Oh, I missed the fun of NPD day.

I feel like this is a discussion that's been had though.

I don't think "top tier talent" is mandated for publishers to have been putting serious efforts into Wii development. That presumes that top tier talent is actually a dimension of value to the Wii userbase.

I don't actually know who makes Just Dance, but I don't really think top tier talent is what drives the audience it caters to to buy it.

Of what was made and what wasn't made, and who did and didn't make it, I would imagine some degree of marketing strategy, customer segmentation and profiling, etc was involved.
Although in counter to that, in some respects there did seem to be throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks too.

 

[Opiate]

I hear you. Completely agree on your last point too.

I understand where you're coming from, thanks for explaining it a bit more deeply.

You also make a great point on the mobile side. The scale hurts the big pubs to even get going in a mobile market that thrives on rapid decision making and execution.

I'd add PC to the list to some extent, too. It's not quite as extreme, but I bet we can also agree that all of the big publishers have, to some extent or another, sort of vaguely avoided the PC in a strange way given the enormous revenue it generates (more than any console, and close to all consoles combined, last I saw). Not entirely avoided it, a la iOS or Kinect, but certainly at times seemed less enthusiastic than I might expect. They've given so much room for companies like Valve, Blizzard, Riot and Zynga to breath that they've grown in to behemoths in their own right. They never would have allowed a smaller developer to have that much space to grow on consoles.

I would suggest one of the reasons for this is that the barriers to entry on PC are lower. While of course games like Skyrim and Mass Effect sell well on PC, there are lot more games on PC that come out of nowhere and take the world by storm: Minecraft was made by 1-2 guys, League of Legends by 4 people initially, Counterstrike by 2, and so forth. These games didn't just do well for little guys (the way you might say of Amnesia on PC, or something like Castle Crashers on consoles), but were bonafied megahits, sometimes turning tiny companies in to multibillion dollar ones in relatively short order.

That sort of uncertainty is not something a company like Ubisoft likes. On the Playstation, there are only 4-5 other companies which could honestly compete with them, and there is very little chance of a League of Legends coming out of virtually nowhere and taking the world by storm. That hasn't happened for a long time on consoles -- the last I can think of that even sort of happening was GTAIII, but the barriers to entry then were much lower than they are now.

 

[EventHorizon]

Historically, all these attempts to suggest game changers have fallen flat. It is essentially historically unprecedented for a system to dramatically change its course after 1.5-2 years on the market. At this point last generation, Wii was on pace to be the clear number 1, and PS3/360 were fighting a very close race (within 8 million of each other) for second place -- and that's exactly how the generation ended.

It doesn't mean it can't happen this time, but most of the time when people think game changers are just on the horizon -- price drops, peripherals, what have you -- the best they've done in sustain sales in the long term, not alter the trajectory of the generation in significant ways. Possible, but I'm not betting on it.

I listed very specify reasons why the things would change. Do you have any specific counter arguments to any of them other than that you simply don't think things will change because they haven't in the past?

The Wii was an outlier. The fate of Nintendo's consoles are untethered to that of the PlayStation and Xbox so they can be ignored. Nintendo created a market unto itself, and can rise and fall by itself. As for the other two...

This generation's consoles are the least subsidized in history. That's different from the past. We know that the original Kinect sold exceptionally well years after the 360s launch, so it is not going out on a limb to think the same of Project Morpheus and HoloLens. We have just come out of one of the worst recessions in history which is unlike the economic environment that other consoles released in. So on and so on.

All of that together shows it is very likely that things will change. For a very simple example, how big of a jump in sales do you think would happen if the PS4's price dropped to $299 some time this year? With Sony now charging for PS+, a drop in the cost to make the console, and a small subsidy, Sony could easily do that if they wanted to. That would be huge and is only one of the things I proposed could happen.

 

[John Harker]

Bloodborne is my #1 most anticipate title that's publically announced right now and I still think its sales potential is being overrated by a lot of people here.

Sony hasn't had a ton of luck launching new IPs lately, and it's clear by their tactics they are devoting far more resources to The Order, which means they anticipate that title as their biggest chance for revenue before end of fiscal. Bloodborne has kind of a teetering launch date which is interesting.

Also I don't see much about it that's inherently more appealing than Dark Souls that would make it outperform that series, in fact I think the gothic setting is actually a harder sell. I think it was budgeted and marketed appropriately and will do well for their expectations, and everyone involved will be pleased. Just not a lot of the armchair sales fans of the game here

 

[Opiate]

I listed very specify reasons why the things would change. Do you have any specific counter arguments to any of them other than that you simply don't think things will change because they haven't in the past?

I have some counterarguments, but yes, I think that should be sufficient. Everyone thinks "but this time is different," and will list some vaguely plausible reasons why this time could be different. It's always possible, but so far, it's never happened. Could this time actually be different? Again, it's possible, but historical precedent is not on your side, and this precedent is now 30+ years in the making.

 

[heidern]

The COD games made for the Wii were good games. So were Boom Blox, the Dead Space rail shooter, the Resident Evil games, zak & wiki, etc. But the majority of software sales went to Nintendo, rock band/guitar hero, dancing games and party games.

In other words the new audiences the Wii attracted were targeted mostly with games designed for the traditional audiences? Apart from the fairly safe choice of party games I guess. No wonder it all went wrong.

But compare the potential return of Inifinity Ward developing for Wii versus them developing cod for Ps3 and 360? No way you spend those people hours on the Wii given the development timeline and audiences. The return just wasn't there.

It's not necessarily about size of the return but that it is only potential. Risking a near guaranteed high return on PS3/360 for only a potential return however big is not a bet to be taken lightly. Arguably it would have been foolish and the big publishers did the right thing in this respect.

Of what was made and what wasn't made, and who did and didn't make it, I would imagine some degree of marketing strategy, customer segmentation and profiling, etc was involved.
Although in counter to that, in some respects there did seem to be throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks too.

What it needed was creative vision rather than marketing departments deciding what might sell. Of course 25-45 year old male developers being limited in their vision isn't surprising either. The Sony/MS audience is a natural fit for the existing videogame development community.

 

[Pestilence11]

Great for Dying Light, really enjoying it after ignoring it up until after its launch.

 

[Jamix012]

I think it's a foregone conclusion that this generation will be smaller than the last, which everyone seems to shrug off for some reason but would be the first time ever for that to occur. Consoles have been growing their audience steadily for as long as most of us have been alive, but that trend has now reversed. All of this, of course, while development costs continue to rise.

But to your observation, this generation may also end up being smaller than the PS2 generation. That's not nearly as clear cut -- we may get more than 200M consoles this gen -- but it's possible. Xbox One is a much better second place than Xbox was, but Wii U is a much worse third place, and PS4 is unlikely to be as shining a first place, either.

Honestly, I think numbers might go back to Gen 5 levels. PS4 might hit PS1 Levels, XB1 might hit N64 levels and Wii U will probably go over Saturn levels.

 

[Opiate]

Oh, I missed the fun of NPD day.

I feel like this is a discussion that's been had though.

I don't think "top tier talent" is mandated for publishers to have been putting serious efforts into Wii development. That presumes that top tier talent is actually a dimension of value to the Wii userbase.

Okay, let's say I agree with your premise for a moment (I don't, but let's run with it). What metric would you like to use instead?

If you'd like to use R&D investment, the last I saw (which admittedly was about 5 years ago in an annual FR), EA was spending nearly 2x as much on the PS3 and 360 individually as they were on Wii development. A single game like Battlefield cost more to make than almost their entire Wii catalogue.

I don't actually know who makes Just Dance, but I don't really think top tier talent is what drives the audience it caters to to buy it.

I don't think people often buy games because it happens to be made by top tier talent (although of course it happens sometimes). I think top tier talent is just far more likely to make a good game that sells well. In other words, I'm not suggesting that a game would have sold just because Blizzard made it; I'm suggesting a game made by Blizzard was just far more likely to be very good, and stood a much higher chance of being a breakout hit.

Of what was made and what wasn't made, and who did and didn't make it, I would imagine some degree of marketing strategy, customer segmentation and profiling, etc was involved.
Although in counter to that, in some respects there did seem to be throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks too.

I agree.

 

[Discomurf]

I find it kind of ridiculous that Nintendo has no major releases scheduled (outside of Kirby) until May (Splatoon). Way to kill the small bit of momentum they got over the Holidays.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Well, it is certainly a necessary caveat for "trying everything they could." I mean, we're struggling to name a single AAA, top tier developer at this point who developed even one game (let alone multiple!) for the Wii. I'm not even asking if all of them did, or even most of them did; we're struggling to name a single one. The best we've done so far is freakin' Red Octane, for goodness sakes (and I'll add another for you: Junction Point).



Oh, I don't think it was a conspiracy against Nintendo or something. I think the Wii suffered the same fate that iOS has suffered and that Kinect suffered: despite the enormous success (particularly of iOS, of course, but Kinect got off to a roaring start too), most established publishers just didn't invest heavily in to those platforms. The only exception at all at this point would be EA, who didn't really invest in Kinect and invested in iOS by basically buying out already successful developers like Playfish. Activision, Take 2 and Ubisoft remain relatively or even entirely uninvested in iOS or Kinect.

I think there are lots of reasons for this, but one of those reasons is that these platforms don't play to their strengths. Activision's (and Ubisoft and Take 2 etc.) biggest strength is that they simply have a lot more money than anyone else does, and can afford to create development teams of 500 people or more. This advantage just doesn't matter very much on iOS, or on Kinect, or on Wii. It's not a conspiracy, it's just a basic economic concept; huge companies often have a disincentive to lower barriers to entry.

This is a great post, very interesting conclusion. How do you feel about the rise of the indie scene?

More specifically, do you think the tools will end up enabling them to become the new middle class developers we had during the ps2 days?

 

[AniHawk]

huh. i was sure the wii u would be under 50k for january. i think it'll still be down yoy when 2015 is done though.

 

[Mory Dunz]

I find it kind of ridiculous that Nintendo has no major releases scheduled (outside of Kirby) until May (Splatoon). Way to kill the small bit of momentum they got over the Holidays.

Mario Party 10 is March.....and might be "bigger" than both those games tbh.

Well, maybe

 

[John Harker]

I don't really want to get into it because I don't think my opinion on the subject would be very popular, but if you create a franchise like Just Dance that goes on to sell around 55MM units in only 6 years and DON'T consider that "top tier talent," I think you may have to take a fundamental look on what that term means to you.

 

[Discomurf]

Mario Party 10 is March.....and might be "bigger" than both those games tbh.

Well, maybe

oh right forgot that one :/ ... still really slim pickins though

 

[Opiate]

This is a great post, very interesting conclusion. How do you feel about the rise of the indie scene?

Well, the indie scene has flourished most strongly on iOS, PC, and on browsers, so that certainly goes along with my hypothesis.

While there are of course indie games on consoles now, too, there are literally thousands of indie games on iOS/PC/Browser. It's orders of magnitude larger. And yes, I think these indie studios create uncertainty for the major publishers, because it's at least possible for one of those tiny, three-guys-in-a-garage games to strike a chord and blow up, the way League of Legends did, the way Angry Birds did, the way Minecraft did.

This is really just a different angle for looking at what I'm talking about: platforms which provide lower barriers to entry (literally anyone can make a PC or browser game of any type and no one can stop them; iOS has extremely trivial barriers relative to consoles) will foster more indie studios, and sometimes indie studios end up making a big hit that takes the world by storm. I think the major publishers prefer a place where indie game entrance is more carefully curated and controlled, and consoles allow that. It's not a perfect garden for Ubisoft, but it's a lot closer than iOS or PC are. EA would be against most things that make life easier for small guys to prosper and grow -- and why wouldn't they be? Those guys are potential competition.

I don't really want to get into it because I don't think my opinion on the subject would be very popular, but if you create a franchise like Just Dance that goes on to sell around 55MM units in only 6 years and DON'T consider that "top tier talent," I think you may have to take a fundamental look on what that term means to you.

I definitely agree with you, by the way.

 

[NuKERxyz]

Wow, Less install base but more games sold (even without counting to digital and account share), thats even greater than moving more consoles.

 

[Hydrargyrus]

Back to the WW domination, congrats to Sony!

And back to the pre-season...

 

[bananafactory]

Wow, Less install base but more games sold (even without counting to digital and account share), thats even greater than moving more consoles.

It's not more game sold, it's more games per system sold (attach rate) in January. PS4 still sold more software overall for the month.

 

[BrokenIcarus]

Wow, Less install base but more games sold (even without counting to digital and account share), thats even greater than moving more consoles.

You don't know that. Ms pr at work :/

 

[Mpl90]

PS4 doing less than what PS3 did back in January 2008 (when PS3 was $399 as well)...heck, less than PSP,and (going by a better criteria)less than 200,000. That's certainly a more than decent sales number in general, but it's not a good number for the best selling console. Far from it. The Last of Us started being bundled with every PS4 last month (from January 13th), so this is a result that counts this factor too.

Xbox One selling only 13,000 units more than last year, despite the price being 100$ lower for a few days and 150$ lower for most of the month? While it's true that the console being back at 399.99 had a bad influence on overall sales, I don't think sales would have been astronomically higher. I mean, I don't think sales would have been higher than 200,000, wihout the period at 399.99. I don't know if they'd have been near to 200,000, but I don't completely exclude that as possible (while not believing it that much)

Wii U better than 2014!!! #wiiuprising #2015U #splatoonreigns

Spoiler

It's still abysmal

3DS...eh, it seems it went down far more than I thought, but we need the exact numbers (as well as for Vita). Still, that probably means that people is actually waiting for New 3DS XL's release, there aren't other reasons for a (seemingly) huge decrease YOY like this, seriously. Even considering the past months trend. Going by Amazon, the console should have a pretty good / great debut in Germany and France respectively and, in general, a good debut in most of Europe, bar UK, where numbers could be between "mediocre" and "decent"; for US, thanks to what happeed between Nintendo and Amazon, we haven't enough indicators (excluding chargers and specific accessories) ;_;

 

[marc^o^]

huh. i was sure the wii u would be under 50k for january. i think it'll still be down yoy when 2015 is done though.

There could be a price cut this year, to keep and accelerate this growth.

As a side note, Wii U sold 65k more than Xbox One in Japan in January. The WW difference between the 2 consoles was certainly not massive this month.

 

[Opiate]

For North America, the best selling console this January sold less than the worst selling console at this point last generation (January 2008 was last gen's second January, when the worst selling console sold 230k).

All three consoles combined are selling worse than the Wii alone did at this point in Japan.

However, we're also coming off relatively strong Nov/Dec sales, so it's important not to get all doom-and-gloom one month, and then suddenly decide everything is fine two months from now if sales rebound again when some AAA game drops. I also strongly suspect that both Sony and Microsoft (And perhaps Nintendo, but it's hard to tell given the dismal sales) are extracting considerably more money this generation per consumer. I suspect the ASRP of games has gone up significantly, such that the typical person is far more likely to buy a $60 game and then buy $20 worth of DLC for it. That could allow the manufacturers and developers to survive and profit off a smaller consumer base, even if development costs continue to rise.

 

[AniHawk]

pretty sad showing all around really. the wii u is the wii u, but the xbox one and the ps4 are kind of acting like their initial success truly was frontloaded. i think both are in need of a price drop this year to $299.99 if any one of them is meant to reach the heights of the gba/360/wii/ps2. the ps4 is doing okay on a monthly basis if it was a second place console, and the xbox one is doing rather not okay for a second place console. the wii u is as much the wii u as it was at the start of this post and i think february (maybe march too) will see drops year over year.

vita's doing strangely better, and i've actually seen it on store shelves after the holiday season. no idea why that is, but good for sony on keeping it around. the 3ds must be doing really poorly. there's really nothing left for it aside from the new 3ds, which should only really boost the end of the year numbers. it'll be a bumpy fiscal year up ahead for nintendo, since their new handheld is probably fall 2016.

 

[Opiate]

pretty sad showing all around really. the wii u is the wii u, but the xbox one and the ps4 are kind of acting like their initial success truly was frontloaded. i think both are in need of a price drop this year to $299.99 if any one of them is meant to reach the heights of the gba/360/wii/ps2. the ps4 is doing okay on a monthly basis if it was a second place console, and the xbox one is doing rather not okay for a second place console. the wii u is as much the wii u as it was at the start of this post and i think february (maybe march too) will see drops year over year.

At least for now, the Xbox One is well ahead of both the third and second place consoles last generation. Yes, that could change, and if we just look at this month, it will change, eventually. But so far the PS4/One sales have been very spiky (not just their opening months, but this past Nov/December, too) and a single big month could put the Xbox One right back on "track."

But even if sales do stay depressed like this, it will take literally years for Xbox One to fall behind the second place console of last generation -- it's currently ~1.6M ahead of where the 360 was at this point.

 

[NuKERxyz]

It's not more game sold, it's more games per system sold (attach rate) in January. PS4 still sold more software overall for the month.

Oh ok, misleading on my part.

 

[AniHawk]

For North America, the best selling console this January sold less than the worst selling console at this point last generation (January 2008 was last gen's second January, when the worst selling console sold 230k).

All three consoles combined are selling worse than the Wii alone did at this point in Japan.

However, we're also coming off relatively strong Nov/Dec sales, so it's important not to get all doom-and-gloom one month, and then suddenly decide everything is fine two months from now if sales rebound again when some AAA game drops. I also strongly suspect that both Sony and Microsoft (And perhaps Nintendo, but it's hard to tell given the dismal sales) are extracting considerably more money this generation per consumer. I suspect the ASRP of games has gone up significantly, such that the typical person is far more likely to buy a $60 game and then buy $20 worth of DLC for it. That could allow the manufacturers and developers to survive and profit off a smaller consumer base, even if development costs continue to rise.

honing in on an increasingly smaller, but rich fanbase is not really a silver lining to me. it only might be if that's going to be used to expand the traditional gaming space, but i don't think any traditional first party has the desire to do so. we might be past the point of no return, where it's simply far too risky to place your bets on something unorthodox like the wii, kinect, and ds were.

 

[theprodigy]

There could be a price cut this year, to keep and accelerate this growth.

As a side note, Wii U sold 65k more than Xbox One in Japan in January. The WW difference between the 2 consoles was certainly not massive this month.

ahaha try again

Week 2-5 Media Create: 33592
Week 2-5 Famitsu: 36941

those are the tracking periods that match this NPD period, otherwise you'd have to go and add the final week of December NPD, which is presumably a roflstomp in favor of Xbox One

 

[Opiate]

honing in on an increasingly smaller, but rich fanbase is not really a silver lining to me. it only might be if that's going to be used to expand the traditional gaming space, but i don't think any traditional first party has the desire to do so. we might be past the point of no return, where it's simply far too risky to place your bets on something unorthodox like the wii, kinect, and ds were.

I'm not sure they're rich. Highly inelastic demand, yes, but rich, not necessarily. Being willing to spend more does not mean you actually have more money, it could just mean you're more invested. The last I saw, affluent people were more likely to playing on iOS or browser/PC.

 

[mrklaw]

Slightly confused by this (apologies if it was already covered)

Hardware sales down 23% year on year. Makes sense, we apwere in launch window this time last year.

“After closing a record-breaking holiday, 2015 is off to a great start,” Xbox marketing corporate vice president Mike Nichols siad. “With record January sales for Xbox One and more game sales per console than any other platform

But what about this? Didn't xbox have a pretty huge Jan 2014? I can't imagine they bettered that this year, if PS4 outsold them and hardware overall was down. So what does that PR mean?

 

[AniHawk]

I'm not sure they're rich. Highly inelastic demand, yes, but rich, not necessarily. Being willing to spend more does not mean you actually have more money, it could just mean you're more invested. The last I saw, affluent people were more likely to playing on iOS or browser/PC.

if your term better describes people who are the most likely to spend on traditional gaming (and spend big), then let's go with that. that's what i meant by 'rich'.

although the way things are going, the term 'traditional gaming' may need a better name.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

For North America, the best selling console this January sold less than the worst selling console at this point last generation (January 2008 was last gen's second January, when the worst selling console sold 230k).

All three consoles combined are selling worse than the Wii alone did at this point in Japan.

However, we're also coming off relatively strong Nov/Dec sales, so it's important not to get all doom-and-gloom one month, and then suddenly decide everything is fine two months from now if sales rebound again when some AAA game drops. I also strongly suspect that both Sony and Microsoft (And perhaps Nintendo, but it's hard to tell given the dismal sales) are extracting considerably more money this generation per consumer. I suspect the ASRP of games has gone up significantly, such that the typical person is far more likely to buy a $60 game and then buy $20 worth of DLC for it. That could allow the manufacturers and developers to survive and profit off a smaller consumer base, even if development costs continue to rise.

Its like everyone conveniently forgot this. Shall we remind ourselves how much more PS4+ XB1 sold in the holidays than 360+ PS3 at the same point in their respective life cycles? I think the strength of holiday sales clearly had an effect on January sales.

 

[kitch9]

Wow, Less install base but more games sold (even without counting to digital and account share), thats even greater than moving more consoles.

Dude...

Really?

 

[AniHawk]

Its like everyone conveniently forgot this. Shall we remind ourselves how much more PS4+ XB1 sold in the holidays than 360+ PS3 at the same point in their respective life cycles? I think the strength of holiday sales clearly had an effect on January sales.

the 360 and ps3 were the second and third place consoles of their generation.

 

[Jack cw]

Really surprised that games are selling more on Xbox One. Wounder why and how?

Digital sales, promotions and many core gamers with focus on shooters on the xbone side.
Btw, nice avatar!

 

[Opiate]

Its like everyone conveniently forgot this. Shall we remind ourselves how much more PS4+ XB1 sold in the holidays than 360+ PS3 at the same point in their respective life cycles? I think the strength of holiday sales clearly had an effect on January sales.

And just to emphasize, obviously Nov/Dec are the most important months. Honestly, if PS4/One sell like this consistently, we could see them sell less than PS3/360 for 10 months a year, sell comparatively better only in Nov/Dec, and still sell more overall.

 

[KillerMan91]

pretty sad showing all around really. the wii u is the wii u, but the xbox one and the ps4 are kind of acting like their initial success truly was frontloaded. i think both are in need of a price drop this year to $299.99 if any one of them is meant to reach the heights of the gba/360/wii/ps2. the ps4 is doing okay on a monthly basis if it was a second place console, and the xbox one is doing rather not okay for a second place console. the wii u is as much the wii u as it was at the start of this post and i think february (maybe march too) will see drops year over year.

vita's doing strangely better, and i've actually seen it on store shelves after the holiday season. no idea why that is, but good for sony on keeping it around. the 3ds must be doing really poorly. there's really nothing left for it aside from the new 3ds, which should only really boost the end of the year numbers. it'll be a bumpy fiscal year up ahead for nintendo, since their new handheld is probably fall 2016.

Maybe portable Minecraft gave it boost after all lol. Of course it's still doing abysmally but I don't know any other reasons why it would be up yoy.

 

[C4Lukins]

It went down as I expected for the most part.

I thought Xbox would do around 150k, and PS4 would do 20k better. PS4 did better then I expected.

Wii U did again what I thought it would, but still very dissapointing.

A big flaw with NPD sales is digital sales. It works for console sales, but software is a huge enigma.

The Xbox One for instance, with EA access is probably being shorted for EA sales. AC Unity same thing for different reasons.

But it applies to all consoles. I do not anticipate a happening, but we need digital sales.

 

[Opiate]

if your term better describes people who are the most likely to spend on traditional gaming (and spend big), then let's go with that. that's what i meant by 'rich'.

although the way things are going, the term 'traditional gaming' may need a better name.

If you're not an econ nerd, "highly inelastic demand" refers to people who are not price sensitive regarding a particular product. It doesn't mean they necessarily have more money; it just means they are willing to spend it. If I'm willing to spend $50 on a product, but then the price increases to $51 and I say "screw this, I'll do something else," my demand would qualify as highly elastic. It means I am very price sensitive and would drop something with even modest price changes.But there are people who would continue buying it even as the price rises to $60, then to $70, then to $80 -- their demand would qualify as highly inelastic as they show a willingness to buy the product at virtually any price.

A great example of a product with extreme inelastic demand would be gasoline. If the price of gas rose to $5 per gallon next week, what would you do? Stop driving? Most would just grumble and keep going, even with a sudden 150% increase in price. By contrast, if the price of apples rose by 150% tomorrow, most people would just buy bananas or pears instead. Apple demand is highly elastic.

This concludes today's econ lesson.

 

[travisbickle]

Oh ok, misleading on my part.

It's MS that are misleading. And there will still be people complaining that "GAF doesn't believe MS" when they release sales figures, because we have to de-spin every statement they make.