MiamiWesker
Member
Haven't check this thread since the first night, did we get any more software numbers of any kind or just what we had on thursday night?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD Sales Results for March 2014 [Up4: FFX/X-2 HD]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Memorabilia
Member
Nailed it. China is anything but another, bigger US consumer market. To look at it that way is really simplifying to the point there is zero analytical pr predictive value.
When's the next NPD #'s prediction thread, cause I'm ready to make a prediction
I believe this March numbers won't change much when April npd gets released.
Why should March numbers change when April numbers are released?
Memorabilia
Member
Great, informative post. I've spent a little time in China and look forward to spending much more. Posts like this are always very interesting.
Steve Youngblood
Member
As opposed to what other context?
Memorabilia
Member
It'd be nice to see Sony and MS bring some form of all of the above to other markets as well. It would show they are really making an effort to be consumer friendly. When you think about it, its truly amazing how little regard most companies have for the US consumer. MS demonstrates this time after time with nearly every product release and price point.
Not much more.
We got some more historical context (graphs!), + the usual effort to expunge 'wrong-thinking' by outliers + narrative shaping, as in every thread.
Apophis2036
Banned
Things will become much clearer once they are both priced the same. Right now the XBone is losing because it's more expensive.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
If the sales differential exceeds the cost differential (20%) then it's probably safe to assume other factors are playing an important role as well.
Even once they're price the same, PS4 is still a better machine.
Memorabilia
Member
I have 2 Day One Xbones in different rooms, one of which I use Kinect on and the other which Kinect hasnt been removed from the box. I absolutely disagree with pretty much everything you are saying here. To put it bluntly: Kinect 2.0 is just as much of a joke from a gamer's perspective as was my Kinect 1.0. Due to the inherent weaknesses of the technology and developers/publishers unwillingness to try to push the device in any meaningful way, this is unlikely to change for the entire generation. Unless you think dancing games are the end all, be all then from a gaming perspective the Kinect has always been all hype, no substance and is prettt much a bust. From a usability/UI perspective the motion controls are inefficient, clunky, work only half the time, and take longer to do most tasks than simply using the controller. Voice control is fine, but the same thing could easily be implemented and accomplished with a much cheaper mic. So, on the whole my experience with the Kinect 2.0 is so far basically the same as the old Kinect...its superfluous, gimmicky, and a waste of money.
The Xbone will be much better off when MS removes Kinect 2.0 from the package and offers a cheaper SKU @ $350. Thats when we will see the real "console war".
In a nutshell: I'm loving me some Titanfall. But the Kinect is a joke, both from a gaming and "user interface" perspective. And as a result it unnecessarily raises the price of the console above its more powerful competition, impacting sales. Yes, it really is all about the price point when comparing sales relative to your primary competitor.
krypt0nian
Banned
Apparently TitanFall is the opposite of a system seller. =(
Considering the tie-in ratio, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Even Halo 3 only bumped the 360 to around 500k units, and that game sold triple what Titanfall did in its first month. People use future releases to help inform their console purchases. I am sure a good number of those Nov-Feb XB1 sales were made with Titanfall in mind.
krypt0nian
Banned
The release month sold less. We usually look for a bump at release for a system seller.
Tidus_Great
Banned
return of the king 
hopefully ps4 dominates on a ps2 level so we can see all the best games on one platform
hopefully ps4 dominates on a ps2 level so we can see all the best games on one platformmetalslimer
Member
return of the king
As long as MS and Nintendo exist in the gaming industry, all the best games won't be one platform.
what I meant was that there's not going to be much difference in the April NPD numbers when compared to the March ones. I expect April numbers to me almost identical to March numbers.
Well yeah they might as well. The main problem with Kinect though is the public perception of it. Whether it is a really useful and valuable product doesnt matter, its what people perceive that matters. I dont think they like it that much, whether its the perception of its intrusiveness or whether they like the idea of jumping around. Microsoft should know.
It also gives a narrative to the console. That it is about, movement based games and voice controls. It could make peoples choice easier "Do I want motion games, and a camera?, no I'll go to Sony." Whereas if the consoles were more indistinguishable the choice would be harder and less clearer even with the performance difference(most people dont care about the performance they just care about the games and what their mates playing).
Can they change the public perception of it? convince people of its value, I'm not sure whether they can. If I'm right then just reducing the price in of itself will not be enough.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Something else that hasn't been discussed much in this thread is that Titanfall by itself had alot of sales going on for it. There were 45 and 50 dollar sales for both the Xbox One and PC version. Some places even did Titanfall plus Xbox Live subscription offers. In fact, we are still seeing sales for it. Toys R Us has it for 39.99 as of last night. Infamous did not see many offers.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Exactly. How can anyone say anything different if the more than 1 million sales of the game is accurate? Looking at the overall userbase for the system in the USA, more than a million people buying the game is damn near close to half of all Xbox One owners in the USA. If that isn't a possible system seller, I don't know what it is.
It's why I said before that the definition of a system seller is kind of imperfect and so open to interpretation. Does something in order to be a system seller, specifically have to showcase that it sold 50-200,000 extra systems the very month of release in a particular region? I'd say there's proof enough that a lot of early Xbox One buyers may have indeed bought the system with Titanfall in mind, and we don't even have the worldwide numbers yet. Think about it, coming out of a surprisingly dull January sales wise, there was a massive uptick in Xbox One sales in the month of February which, if I recall, seemed to catch many off guard. Now, I remember some of the theories being tossed around were that people received their tax checks, but that was also the month when the Titanfall BETA began. I think Xbox One sales for that month more than doubled from their previous January figures, about 100,000 more to be exact.
What is that if not impact? Though, I suppose that could just also be a rebound due to an abnormally low January, no answer is really perfect. Look at the PS4's 370k, that's damn near close to a 100,000 unit bump over the previous month. I'd say that's clear evidence Infamous sold a good number of PS4s. Software sales in the USA may not be as high as Titanfall's, but you see clear movement in the hardware sales. There was an obvious shift in the Xbox One's direction in the month of February, the month the BETA started. However, for March there was also a more than 50,000 unit bump for the Xbox One from February to the month of March, and keep in mind that Titanfall released the 11th of the month. NPD covered from March 2nd to April 5th, that's 3 weeks and 4 days worth of Titanfall sales data.
Infamous released the 21st of March, meaning NPD only captured 1 week and 5 days worth of Infamous sales data, suggesting greatly we have yet to even see the full impact of Infamous in the USA.
Titanfall - 3 weeks and 4 days. (over a million)
Infamous: Second Son - 1 week and 5 days. (under 400k)
Now, predicting this stuff is no perfect science, but these figures are why I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see if either the PS4 or Xbox One, or even both, sell a tad more in April than they both did in March, or for either game to show some decent legs in the following month. Perhaps Titanfall after the February BETA and the release month in March is mostly tapped out (very possible), whereas Infamous, which had less NPD coverage of its release period data, has a little bit more (or lot more) to contribute. It's hard to say which it is, but April should be interesting.
Aquamarine
Member
I wonder how much retailers will actually care about the new revision...or if there are any that will just use this opportunity to cease stocking the Vita and replace it with more profitable items.
prag16
Banned
As long as you can acknowledge that many people DO like the gamepad, and have valid reasons for doing so.
Regarding Zelda, I wouldn't be shocked to see a November 2015 Wii U release, then a November 2016 "definitive edition" as a launch game for a potential Wii U successor. I doubt it'll get completely cancelled for Wii U and moved to the next console.
Sword Of Doom
Member
There's no denying how aggressively this game has been pushed. I doubt anyone would argue with that
Again, I know, but PS4 suffered so much from supply shortages in February, after the very good January it had (where it also suffered shortages, but much less intense problems on that front). Maybe it's better to use an example by numbers to explain what I mean.
In the past few years, January-to-February meant a 40% increase in weekly sales. This year, it's been even bigger, probably due to the awful climatic conditions at the beginning of the year. While March is always lower than February (but higher than January, in some cases even not that much - always speaking about average weekly sales - ).
What this means in PS4 case? Let's use January result as baseline. Despite being influenced by shortages, it was still a month were PS4 was available somewhere (no Amazon, Best Buy, other online stores, but there were stores with the console in stock, even if not so much) and where it sold very well (especially given how the rest sold).
This is what the situation would have been without shortages in February
January - 271,000
February - 380,000 - 400,000 (40 to 50% increase from Jan to Feb)
March - 371,000 (better than January, lower than February)
Without shortages, PS4 could have sold between 110,000 to 130,000 more units in February. These should have been lost sales, customers who didn't buy the console due to stock not being there and were waiting for the new availability, "suppressed demand". But, again, February was the month where PS4 suffered immensely, due to February's production problems (units allocated for Japanese launch, Chinese's New Year festivities), and where both stores and online sites had few allotments (with Amazon having some for just a few days). March, instead, saw a huge increase in stock for the platform, with not just Amazon having it in stock, but also other major online retailers, as well as many stores, with some stories of sold outs here and there, but far more availability than February. And not just at the end of the month (like UK, instead). So, a good part of that "suppressed demand" should have been there: not the whole 110,000-130,000, since among them there's certainly people who decides to wait more (which means representation in April as well) / people who decides to buy something else / people not buying anything anymore due to lack of money compared to when he wanted to, but something like 60,000- 70,000 in addition to what would have been the "normal" March number, given the trajectory. 371,000 + 60,000-70,000 = 430,000 - 440,000. But it didn't happen. Where are those potential sales? Is it possible that they never existed? Or maybe March's result already includes part of the unsatisfied demand in February? I don't know, but IMHO March's PS4 numbers means that sales could slow more than what we thought.
April has always been a month were sales went way down compared to March, normally 40%, if not 50% (lower amount of weeks, but also lower average weekly sales). Still, in the other post, I said my prediction for PS4 in April is 200,000 - 220,000, which would mean between 40% and 46% decrease from March. This is in-between my optimistic possibility for the console (240,000 - 250,000) which would mean selling more than "just well" and reflect "suppressed demand" still to satisfy, after all, and my pessimistic possibility (175,000 - 185,000) which would mean that March result already included that and, then, demand is not big anymore. As said, I tend to think it'll do the in-between results.
If by "exceeding Xbox 360" sales, you mean having better months than 360, but not by a big amount, I don't know if that can be qualified as doing "very well". Depending on how much the difference is, it can range from "well" to "very well" and go in-between. This because IIRC 360, at the beginning, suffered immensely from shortages (and the infamous RROD).
Here's the overall picture of 360 sales between launch and December 2006
2005
November - 326.000 - Xbox 360
December - 281.000
2006
January - 249.000
February - 161.000
March - 192.000
April - 295.000
May - 221.000
June - 277.000
July - 206.000
August - 205.000
September - 260.000
October - 220.000
November - 511.000
December - 1.100.000
360 suffered a lot due to shrotages at the beginning, and look at April: it represents a gigantic exception to the rule for Mar-Apr trends, which means that's the month when 360 started being much more available. That surge is caused by the suppressed demand since the launch. It means that exceeding only by a bit 360's first months wouldn't have been selling very well (since those were supply constrained months), but also that, for example, if PS4 sells as much as 360 did back in April 2006, it'd be a great result, even if it doesn't exceed 360.
Yep, that was a loooong post, hopefully now it's more clear what I meant.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
They wanted it to get into as many hands as possible hoping word of mouth would goose sales further down the road. Too bad there isn't enough content in the game right now. Many people are just waiting for the sequel.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
So MS is going to start giving out free games on the Xbone when they are giving away games like Rainbow Six Vegas on 360's Games for Gold and actinglike they are doing us a favor?
I think the first one has to make a splash. From there, you may be right. They may hand out trash or old titles. But to make a splash at E3, they got to go big to say they are sorry.
CadetMahoney
Member
return of the king
Pretty much, we don't need bone holding back PS4/PC.
All of this talk about system sellers led to me checking Apr 2008's NPD thread, because I remember people being disappointed in GTAIV's bump. I was greeted with Wii sales over 700k. In April. I forgot how crazy those days were. We should probably enjoy the new HD twins' reign as the first and second fastest selling systems ever in the US, because that's not lasting when we move out of the era of extreme Wii hardware shortages.
return of the king
Even this early into the gen,
this statement is already false.
Look, if you see some older PAL Charts threads / NPD threads, you'll see my posts with comprehensive comparisons between games and consoles on PS4 and One based on both Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com, so I'm one of those who's perfectly aware of the potential of Amazon being a possibly good index for trends. Always with the knowledge that they need to be filtered (special deals, exclusives, etc.etc.), but now, by comparing Amazon charts with actual charts / different SKUs sales, I can also say that they tend to be more positive towards core content and, currently Sony content.
And, if I have to be honest, I wouldn't solve those differencies by saying "it's just a placement". In the first case, especially, by assuming all Xbox One sold in the month were Titanfall bundles (which is obviously not true), you still have a title which sold less than 500k, and that came out later in the month, outselling another one selling over 700k. The same for FF Vita v.s. DKC: a much smaller scale, but not invisibile. Moreover, the FF SKU being higher than Titanfall bundle is the Special Edition, the limited one, which certainly did lower than One + TF.
I don't know how many examples of of a large difference in positions can be found, but here's one (we should take into consideration actual sales, not just positions...I mean, when we have an idea of actual sales for specific titles), from the February chart. Call of Duty 360 was first both on NPD and Amazon, but...
Call of Duty PS4 - 37th
Call of Duty PS3 - 41st
Call of Duty One - 54th
The real order for the month was this
360, PS3, Xbox One, PS4, Wii U, PC
So, it's a valuable index, but if used taking into account the right contexts / situations and filtering them.
Microsoft made the game happen but that only bought them timed exclusivity. That means Playstation versions of the game were being planned. Hell, they chose Source because of its portability to PS3. Just because they bought the timed into full exclusivity later doesn't negate the fact that they had already rescued the game back when Playstation versions were on the table after the timed exclusivity expired.
Their original influx of cash in order to save the game is what bought them the timed exclusivity, not the full. That came later for more money in EA's pocket.
return of the king
Impossible because of MS owned exclusives.
That was true in the PS2 generation as well. You missed a ton of good games if you skipped the Gamecube and Xbox. However, a lot of people didn't care because they had more than they could play on the PS2 as it was.
X1 owners will have more than they could play on their console as well.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
None of that changes what I said. There was never a PS4 version of the game and it wouldn't exist at all without MS. So there is no reason for EA to think about lost sales. The fact is they have done great out of this deal, no risk and big rewards.
Sure, because 80-90% of third party retail games are multiplatform now. OG Xbox owners had a ton to play as well back in the PS2 generation for the same reason.
AnthonypUK
Member
What a load of rubbish, EA are all about the money, not just a little profit here and there, not making some money but they want ALL the money, you can bet your ass they're sitting there thinking what if those Titanfall sales could be at minimum ..double, had we put it on other consoles.
It doesn't mean they arent happy with what they got, but they will be rueing the fact that they could have got more , thats how corporation's with investors to keep happy work.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
The only question that remains for this generation is by how much the Xbox One will lose by...
Well, I thought XB1 might outsell or at least catch up to the PS4 with the help of Titanfall, but I guess not. MS being so quiet made me wonder, though. Sony has been doing most things right so far. Let's hope they can stay the course. Phil and MS have a massive challenge ahead of them with the XB1. Good luck to them.
Are Nintendo still being silent? I skipped a bunch of pages and may have missed something.
Are Nintendo still being silent? I skipped a bunch of pages and may have missed something.
funkystudent
Member
Speaking of... I wonder when the great big EA/MS deal was signed and how long it was for.
We heard rumours about it the day after the PlayStation Meeting last year when EA was noticeably absent.
I wonder how long EA will be tied to MS's hip because of that. Maybe we will just see things dialled back this year. MS/EA still doing co marketing but nothing crazy like bundling free copies of Fifa and Madden with consoles which must have cost MS a decent chunk.
I dont expect we will see a EA presents at a PlayStation event for another year at least.
Maybe they get some star wars reveals at MS's show this year. Now that I think of it I wonder if they will trot Amy Henning out on MS's E3 stage this year. I wonder how far along that game is when she joined.
We heard rumours about it the day after the PlayStation Meeting last year when EA was noticeably absent.
I wonder how long EA will be tied to MS's hip because of that. Maybe we will just see things dialled back this year. MS/EA still doing co marketing but nothing crazy like bundling free copies of Fifa and Madden with consoles which must have cost MS a decent chunk.
I dont expect we will see a EA presents at a PlayStation event for another year at least.
Maybe they get some star wars reveals at MS's show this year. Now that I think of it I wonder if they will trot Amy Henning out on MS's E3 stage this year. I wonder how far along that game is when she joined.
ambientmystic
Member
No PR, nothing from them.
Jimmyfenix
Member
Apparently "Insiders" Have said EA are making the next titanfall multiplatform and have reestablished a partnership with Sony. Though we will probably only see EA on Sony's stage to Announce Peggle 2 and PvZ GW release dates.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
I still don't understand why EA went so staunchly behind MS early this generation.
One can say moneyhats, but EA should've had more foresight to realize this wasn't in their best interest this generation.
Everyone expected Microsoft to be the default winner this generation because of the way the 360 turned out. I don't believe many people seriously expected the PS4 to blow up the way it has.
Why? I would have bet on Microsoft.
They:
1. Dominated in the biggest markets for EA's core games, except for continental Europe where Sony would get versions of those anyway.
2. Have been much more amenable, historically, to the type of support EA would need (co-marketing, co-development, "waivers" for TRC requirements).
3. Culturally and procedurally far more aligned with EA's style (global title approval, content delivery with advertising focus, monetization...I think people generally fail to realize how long it took Sony to catch on to all the shitty garbage trends of last gen. GoW3 didn't even have DLC I think).
4. Offered a great DRM scheme. Even if EA had no role in its creation, it was pretty nice for them.
Picking Sony would be stupid.
Sony surprised everybody. That's the real story I take away from the last year or so. Not that the system is doing well or that one system is not doing as well...it's that Sony:
1. Came out of no where with a February unveiling that obviously forced Microsoft's hand
2. Destroyed them at E3 with simple, straightforward messaging (Microsoft's strength)
3. Took a Microsoft strength (hardware performance) and turned it into a weakness
4. Undercut Microsoft whereas they dramatically overshot the previous gen
5. Launched in 70+ countries within a 3 month timeframe
6. Radically shifted co-development/co-marketing/developer relations over the course of 2-3 years such that independent developers ran full speed into Sony's camp and large publishers have maintained or grown relationships with Sony for co-marketing agreements (Ubisoft is a grower, Activision giving Sony their BIGGEST and most important GAME EVER is pretty shocking).
So, yeah, both systems are "doing well." But the swing of momentum is absolutely incredible and basically has Sony completely turning the tables on Microsoft within 18 months. That's the story.
They:
1. Dominated in the biggest markets for EA's core games, except for continental Europe where Sony would get versions of those anyway.
2. Have been much more amenable, historically, to the type of support EA would need (co-marketing, co-development, "waivers" for TRC requirements).
3. Culturally and procedurally far more aligned with EA's style (global title approval, content delivery with advertising focus, monetization...I think people generally fail to realize how long it took Sony to catch on to all the shitty garbage trends of last gen. GoW3 didn't even have DLC I think).
4. Offered a great DRM scheme. Even if EA had no role in its creation, it was pretty nice for them.
Picking Sony would be stupid.
Sony surprised everybody. That's the real story I take away from the last year or so. Not that the system is doing well or that one system is not doing as well...it's that Sony:
1. Came out of no where with a February unveiling that obviously forced Microsoft's hand
2. Destroyed them at E3 with simple, straightforward messaging (Microsoft's strength)
3. Took a Microsoft strength (hardware performance) and turned it into a weakness
4. Undercut Microsoft whereas they dramatically overshot the previous gen
5. Launched in 70+ countries within a 3 month timeframe
6. Radically shifted co-development/co-marketing/developer relations over the course of 2-3 years such that independent developers ran full speed into Sony's camp and large publishers have maintained or grown relationships with Sony for co-marketing agreements (Ubisoft is a grower, Activision giving Sony their BIGGEST and most important GAME EVER is pretty shocking).
So, yeah, both systems are "doing well." But the swing of momentum is absolutely incredible and basically has Sony completely turning the tables on Microsoft within 18 months. That's the story.
I dunno, I can easily see it. It seems like both companies had a very similar vision of where they want gaming to go (and how they want pricing plans to work). Honestly, I would not be surprised at all if EA didn't have something to do with MS's original plans (that it wasn't some sort of agreement between the two). I think I'd be more surprised to learn EA had nothing to do with it honestly. What MS originally tried to do with the xbox just seemed exactly like the kind of thing EA wants to push so I really would suspect some of their close relationship had to do with that (and since MS had to 180 I bet that as well as PS4 getting dominant has helped EA change their mind). I don't think MS did it solely for EA mind you, I think both companies though were very compatible in where they saw gaming going (and Y2Kev's post above me also points out other ways EA and MS are very compatible and have similar visions of where gaming is going).
I'll also point out that I have suspicions Bethesda is warming up more to Sony (granted that's just my personal suspicions/hopes. But for one thing one of Sony's big ads for PS4 in the past showcases Bethesda's game first, they announced though it seems nothing came out of it having the exclusive Beta for Elder Scrolls Online during E3 I believe <- but I haven't heard anything after that about there being a beta on PS4 so no idea what happened but I know they had announced it cause I originally mistook it as exclusive Elder Scrolls Online for console). But, I just want to point that out cause I'm a huge Fallout/Elder Scrolls fan so that alone makes me very very very happy (as I prefer PS and will fully admit it).
Remember, the rumors were that, before the February PS meeting, Sony were very quiet. No one, not even the publishers, knew much about what their plans for the PS4 were. MS, on the other hand, seems to have been talking with publishers for a while about their next-gen plans well before the official May reveal. This gives the impression that Sony will be coming to the next-gen party late, and given MS dominance in NA, would start well behind in the next gen race to MS.
funkystudent
Member
Yup.
Every reasonable sign was pointing to MS winning this gen before February 20th last year. You really have to look at things with the Info we had before the PlayStation Meeting last year.
MS was much more open with 3rd parties about the XB1 before Sony was with the PS4. This was clear to me last year but stuff like the Titanfall Final Hours make it more clear. This explains why many didnt have faith in Sony releasing in 2013.
MS had generated a decent following in the EU and where expected to finally overtake Sony there. EA and Fifa played a big part for Sony and it made sense MS would court them to catch up.
Rumours where Sony was cheaping out on hardware and going with a lower spec machine.
Add on top of that MS being committed to DRM early on and yeah. It made perfect sense for any big pub to back the Xbox.
Then the PlayStation meeting happened and it became clear Sony wasnt fucking around with the hardware.
Then E3 happened and Sony blitzed MS's DRM strategy in front of the world
Man....... Last year was wild.
I think both Sony and Microsoft where both shocked how things turned out last year for both of them.