All purpose Sales and Sales Rumors and Anecdotes [2016 Edition]

[Rangers]

Ubi only 14% on PC?? 80% consoles.

Why do they even support PC? Must be quite cheap to do PC ports with upgraded graphics nowadays.

Or the reason of bad performance is stupid Uplay!?

I have noticed typical Triple A console games dont do THAT well on PC. This means like your Assassins Creed style games, or even lets say Uncharted 4 (I know it's not on PC, but it's a good example of a prototypical console game). They sell on PC, which is why they get ported, but significantly less than at console levels.

PC gets dominated by more "organic" games like League of Legends, Dota 2, Hearthstone, Minecraft, Counter Strike GO, etc. As well as indies seem like a bigger factor.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I have noticed typical Triple A console games dont do THAT well on PC. This means like your Assassins Creed style games, or even lets say Uncharted 4 (I know it's not on PC, but it's a good example of a prototypical console game). They sell on PC, which is why they get ported, but significantly less than at console levels.

PC gets dominated by more "organic" games like League of Legends, Dota 2, Hearthstone, Minecraft, Counter Strike GO, etc. As well as indies seem like a bigger factor.

Don't forget that PC also gets dominated by games like Dark Souls 3, GTA, traditional Battlefield games (IE - not the crappy ones like Star Wars or the cops one), Fallout, TES games (which include Oblivion and Skyrim), the Witcher seriers, among others. Anything Blizzard made and obviously anything AAA that doesn't appear on consoles, like the Total War series.

PC just has a low regard for badly ported titles or titles that are thought to be badly ported...like Assassins Creed Unity, Far Cry 4 (still did relatively well as it was mostly a good port on Nvidia hardware), Watch Dogs, or Batman: AA, for example. Also games where the PC user base feels the developer has turned their back on PC, like the COD games which no longer feature dedicated servers now that they are also on consoles.

And just the absolutely mind bogglingly vast selection of games (AAA, indie and budgets in between) on PC means there's far more choices vying for a consumer's dollars than there is on Console.

For example, something like Harvest Moon would be a AAA game on consoles most likely. Stardew Valley is basically Harvest Moon with more robust crafting and does extremely well. Granted without the AAA graphical bling or CGI cutscenes. Then again would a modern AAA budget (multi-million USD) Harvest Moon even come close to making back its development budget if it had a AAA budget? Hence game genres that used to be AAA game genres (side scrolling platformers, SCHMUPs, JRPGs, for example) on console that can no longer survive on console or have a difficult time of recouping console development costs instead flourish on PC. Due in large part to DD only sales removing a significantly large chunk of cost of sales (manufacturing, packaging, shipping, etc.) which often is larger than the actual cost of developing a game.

Anyway, AAA titles sell quite well on PC. As long as the AAA title treats PC users well. Evidenced by Sega green lighting AAA PC only game development still (Dawn of War 3, for example). KOEI increasing the number of games released on PC. Square Enix increasing the number of ports from console to PC (as well as offering superior PC versions of some of their games). From Software viewing PC as an equal platform to consoles. Platinum games viewing PC as on par with consoles. Etc.

UBIsoft gets the shaft from many PC users just because of how shoddy their PC versions have been the last few years. Meanwhile From Software went from a laughing stock (Yay Dark Souls on PC...BOO, this port is so crap) to respectable (Dark Souls 2) to being well rewarded (Dark Souls 3).

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So my above post got me interested in looking at some financial statements by publishers and the first one I ran across for Square Enix was interesting in a number of ways. On page 22 of their results briefing for FY ending March 31, 2016 it contains a chart with unit sales by region for PC and console. The chart is only for their AAA titles (HD is considered AAA for console and PC and it's the same for MMO which is also console and PC).

Lots of data in that one chart.

Physical versus DD (full-length game releases only, NOT DLC or subscriptions) unit sales (not revenue).

2016

Japan - DD makes up only 16.24% of full game sales.
NA + Europe - DD makes up 42.84% of full game sales.
Asia outside of Japan - DD makes up 50% of full game sales.
Total - DD makes up 37.40% of full games sales for Square Enix

2017 YoY forecast

Japan - DD makes up 16.67% of full game sales.
NA + Europe - DD makes up 34% of full game sales.
Asia outside of Japan - DD makes up 37.50% of full game sales.
Total - DD makes up 31.67% of full game sales.

So it's interesting that DD currently makes up such a large percentage of Square Enix's sales, especially if you factor out Japan. I think a large part of that is that many of their releases for the past year have featured a PC as well as console release (ROTR, JC3, FFXIV expansion). Looking forward to FY ending 2017 there's some major console only titles being released that they hope will do well (FFXIV, DQH2, PS4 version of ROTR, KH-HD 2.8 FCP) with only one major PC release (Deus Ex: MD). As well Japan just isn't into DD like the rest of the world yet. Which isn't surprising. They have fast internet, but not as many people use the internet in Japan as the rest of the world.

However, what is most surprising is the number of units sold for 2016 versus the number of units sold for 2017 forecast.

Japan - 5.11 million units down to 4.20 million units, a reduction of 17.81%
NA + Europe - 15.99 million units growing to 25.00 million units, a growth of 56.35%
Asia outside of Japan - 1.68 million units down to 0.80 million units, a reduction of 51.19%
Total - 28.78 million units growing to 30.00 million units, a growth of 1.22%

I found that bit fascinating. In a fiscal year where Square Enix is primarily releasing Japanese titles, they are expecting significant shrinkage of their sales in Japan and massive shrinkage of what little sales they had from Asia outside of Japan. Meanwhile expecting huge growth in the Western countries.

To go along with the above. Page 18 shows more interesting information regarding revenue and operating margin. Only going to look at Digital Entertainment as that's the one that contains console, PC, smart devices, and browser games.

FY ending 2016 - Revenue 159 billion Yen with 17.3% operating margins.
FY ending 2017 - Projected revenue of 200 billion Yen with 15.7% operating margins.

It should come as no surprise that with a larger share of physical sales, there is going to be a reduction in operating margins, and that's a fairly good indication.

And finally, smart devices and browser games now make up 43.30% of all Digital Entertainment (non-arcade games) revenue for Square Enix. It's no wonder that part of Nintendo's focus is towards that area. This is likely why Japan and Asia will continue to shrink in importance for AAA game development.

It was nice to see a publisher actually break out full game unit sales for physical and digital, rather than the typical revenue for physical and digital. Mostly to remove the influence of DLC and subscriptions which aren't considered Unit Sales.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Moving onto Sega and things get are interesting although less useful.

1st thing first. Pachislot and Pachinko own the roost. While it brings in far less revenue (141.0 billion YEN versus 190.5 billion YEN in FY ending 2016) it brings in disproportionately more operating income (20.9 billion YEN versus 4.2 billion YEN in FY ending 2016). If you look at FY ending 2015, it was far worse. Revenue of 152.1 billion YEN versus 199.6 billion YEN leading to operating incomes of 25.7 billion YEN versus 0.0 billion YEN.

If you want to know why Konami want to focus on Pachislot and Pachinko, there you go. It is far more profitable despite bringing in far less revenue.

Now for the less useful bits. Digital games account for greater than 50% of SEGA games revenue versus physical sales, as well as in general generating more revenue. But at least physical games aren't operating at a loss anymore. And it's not terribly informative as there's no breakdown of digital sales and SEGA has a rather large stable of F2P and mobile games.

Only thing of note is increased focus on PC for 2017.

I think I'll end it there. That was far less interesting and informative than the Square Enix report. Although it was interesting to see just how much of a profit generator Pachislot and Pachinko are.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shortbread]

PLAYSTATION®4 SALES SURPASS 40 MILLION UNITS WORLDWIDE

SAN MATEO, CA, May 26, 2016 – Sony Interactive Entertainment (SIE) today announced that PlayStation®4 (PS4™) has cumulatively sold through more than 40 million units*1 to consumers worldwide as of May 22, 2016, continuing to demonstrate the fastest-selling console in PlayStation® history. By offering users a vast array of exciting software titles from 3rd party developers and publishers as well as from SIE Worldwide Studios (SIE WWS), PS4 software sales also remain strong, with more than 270.9 million copies*2 sold in retail stores globally and through digital downloads on PlayStation®Store as of May 22, 2016.

40 million just before E3...

 

[DieH@rd]

2.1 millions as of December 1st, 2013
4.2 millions as of December 28th, 2013 | 9.7 millions software | Tie ratio: 2.31
5.3 millions as of February 8th, 2014
6 millions as of March 2nd, 2014 | 13.7 millions software | Tie ratio: 2.28
7 millions as of April 6th, 2014 | 20.5 millions software | Tie ratio: 2.93
10 millions as of August 10th, 2014 | 30 millions software | Tie ratio: 3
18.5 millions as of January 4th, 2015 | 81.8 millions software | Tie ratio: 4.42
20.2 millions as of March 1st. 2015
30.2 millions as of November 22nd, 2015
35.9 millions as of January 3rd, 2016
40 millions as of May 22nd, 2016 | 270.9 millions software | Tie ratio: 6.8

 

[chris1515]

https://issuu.com/newbayeurope/docs/mcv880_may_27th

Only one console have better sales than last year in UK the PS4

Year To Date Hardware sales (units)

PlayStation 4 - 207,907 units (+6.7%)
Xbox One (-15.8%)
Nintendo Wii U (-48.3%)

PlayStation 3 (-74.6%)
Xbox 360 (-87.2%)

 

[Shortbread]

https://issuu.com/newbayeurope/docs/mcv880_may_27th

Only one console have better sales than last year in UK the PS4

I would have thought the drop-off in PS3 sales would have been greater than XB360 in the UK. Interesting...

 

[Rangers]

A bit disturbing the drop off for hardware as a whole though (The parent article states total hardware was down 22.6%, and even PS4 was down in revenue due to lower pricing). Unlike software you cannot blame any declines on digital.

Checking my NPD records, it seems PS4 is up a bit and XBO down a bit through April in NPD as well. But, the PS4 price drop is still a year fresher and should have that effect probably.

 

[eastmen]

I don't see this matters. What the manufacturer and the devs do with hardware is more important than how much raw performance it has. As has been raised many times previously, the original Xbox was quite a bit more powerful than the PS2 but that they didn't mean anything to the majority of consumers. PS4 has 50% more CUs than Xbox One and the world didn't end for Xbox. They both play the same games and the differences aren't night and day. Much like 360 and PS3 and original Xbox and PS2.

Going forward I can only see the differences becoming more and more marginal. Just look at high-end PCs for years of proof about the relative advances in computational power and diminishing returns this power can be used for.

It seemed to me that the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox one led to a lot of people buying the PS4 and that in turned lead to it being the lead platform.

The original Xbox was a year after the ps2. But it was almost 3 years after the dreamcast which was the start of the generation and it was a new console by MS who never produced one before. Unlike Sony who entered a market with a sega that was falling apart and a Nintendo that was no where to be found , MS entered a market with a dominate Sony.

If the power difference is big enough people will buy into it. Games that run at 1080p 60fps on the xbox scorpio will run worse on the neo. So those who want the best experience will flock to the scorpio. If they manage to hit 10tflops not only will they be able to keep the frame rate higher but also add in more of everything to make the world look more realistic.

As for high end pcs the problem wasn't diminishing returns , it was them being held back by consoles. The xbox 360 and ps3 were locked in spec from 2005 to 2013 when the new systems came out. That's a good 8 years where games were designed for systems with a total of 512 megs of ram.

Even after the xbox one and ps4 came out they were still handicapped by APUs with access to 4 gigs of ram. Pcs on the other hand have expanded to include 16-32 gigs of ram and graphics cards with 3- 8 gigs of ram and super fast ssds and so on. If a developer sat down and made a crisis designed just for the PC and pumped a triple A budget into it , you would easily be able to tell the difference in power between the platforms .

You can bet that if MS had such an advantage they would pump money into projects that would take advantage of the power difference

 

[Silent_Buddha]

To be fair, that's because high end PC isn't really being targeted. A game designed from the ground up to make best use of powerful gaming rig would be substantially better than what's actually available which is mostly about scaling up with minimal effort from a lower common denominator. But yes, a two fold increase perofrmance doesn't equate to a 2x increase in on screen wow. Wow is on a logarithmic curve.

This was very much in evidence on PC when the new console generation came out. For many developers/publishers there was an immediate larger than "normal" jump in visual quality despite PC hardware not changing significantly relative to any other hardware generation change on PC during the X360/PS3 years.

There are points of diminishing returns, obviously, but there's also relatively untapped area's for massive improvements. Lighting for example is still mostly limited by consoles and past generations of hardware on PC. Regardless of the lighting solution chosen, it has to be able to run on consoles and it has to be able to run in some capacity on years old graphics hardware on PC (although even on PC, you'll see some developers just chose a hardware generation "cut-off" in order to not be limited by that generation of hardware).

What does this mean for consoles. Just like PS3/X360 to PS4/XBO didn't see a 1:1 increase in graphics quality compared to GPU power, it obviously won't happen with Neo or Scorpio either. However, unlike PS3/X360 to PS4/XBO not every developer or even most developers are likely to target Neo or Scorpio.

Most developers will continue to target base PS4/XBO and then either increase resolution, increase FPS, or increase the quality/complexity of the existing shaders. Similar to console to PC ports. VR developer's are far more likely to do the reverse, however. Target Neo and downgrade as much as possible to possible to support PS4. That's mostly due to the fact that the PS4 is fairly underpowered with regards to VR. At least for anything other than relatively simplistic games.

That will most likely change with the consoles after the Neo/Scorpio. At that point NEO/Scorpio become the new targets for most developers while the new consoles are only targeted by a few developer.

We'll end up seeing a more graduated progression in graphics quality rather than a drastic increase as in past generations. However, by the time a certain console hardware configuration becomes the target for development it should match fairly closes the time it would have taken that generation to become the target anyway.

IE.

PS4 - > Neo (gradual increase) -> PS5 (gradual increase) -> PS5+ (gradual increase) -> etc.

But

PS4 -> PS5 (big increase)
NEO -> PS5+ (big increase)

For Xbox side, just replace with Xbox variants. Basically it just becomes more PC like, but in general better overall than in the past as PC won't be limited as much by consoles during the traditional middle of a console generation. The entire gaming industry (console + PC) will gradually increase in quality in relatively small time increments. Versus the entire graphics industry (console + PC) only having large increases (lurches) after a large time increment.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It seemed to me that the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox one led to a lot of people buying the PS4 and that in turned lead to it being the lead platform.

As I've said before, I've never seen compelling evidence that performance is a big deal in terms of swaying sales. I simply on't think it is. Go back as many console generations as you like and try and find a persistent correlation between performance and sales. However try price and then you're cooking. PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4.

For those people for which performance is really important, most are going to be looking at a PC. The one that aren't either can't afford so (so we're back to price) or are doing so for exclusives.

 

[Jay]

However try price and then you're cooking. PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4

when has ps4 ever been cheaper than xo? That's also the most recent example. So just being cheaper isn't enough, and to get to a low enough price point that it is, may not be viable.
xo has a decent line up of exclusives also imo

a lot of things are different compared to previous generations.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

when has ps4 ever been cheaper than xo? That's also the most recent example.

I can only speak for the UK but the Xbox One launched at £429 and PS4 at £349, but PS4 was also cheaper when priced in Euros too.

edit: seconds of googling shows the launch prices as:
PS4: US$399, €399, £349
XBO: US$499, €499, £429

So uh.. yeah.

 

[Nisaaru]

As I've said before, I've never seen compelling evidence that performance is a big deal in terms of swaying sales. I simply on't think it is. Go back as many console generations as you like and try and find a persistent correlation between performance and sales. However try price and then you're cooking. PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4.

They lost market share in the US and GB over night. Now they aren't the COD default platform anymore and the whole Bungie/Destiny farce didn't help either. There were a lot stupid decision and they *cost* MS.

For those people for which performance is really important, most are going to be looking at a PC. The one that aren't either can't afford so (so we're back to price) or are doing so for exclusives.

The 360 users spent more money on games than the PS3 users. They were also older and the XBox franchise was founded on the principle to be the best console for multi platform(PC games). It's not a money issue but price/performance.

If you really think these people don't have the money for some top end PC or don't already own one you're completely missing the convenience factor. I was a PC gamer until 2001/2 but since the original one I rarely played games on my PC because I dislike doing so at my desk where I already sit to do my "work". I prefer sitting in front of a big TV and relax. Sure I could set up a PC there but I'm just too lazy to deal with all the crap(Windows, noise, heat and maintenance) and experience the same games only less smooth.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If you really think these people don't have the money for some top end PC or don't already own one you're completely missing the convenience factor.

I'm really not, I've stated my preference for the console experience on many occasions.

I was a PC gamer until 2001/2 but since the original one I rarely played games on my PC because I dislike doing so at my desk where I already sit to do my "work". I prefer sitting in front of a big TV and relax. Sure I could set up a PC there but I'm just too lazy to deal with all the crap(Windows, noise, heat and maintenance) and experience the same games only less smooth.

I don't consider myself a PC gamer or a console gamer or a handheld gamer. I'm just a gamer. I started gaming on an Atari 2600, then a Commodore 64, Commodore Amigas (plural), Window 98 to XP to Windows 7 to Windows 10 PCs (plural), PlayStations 1 - 4, Nintendo handhelds (Game + Watch, Gameboys (plural), Sony handhelds (plural), Wii, Macs running Windows, Macs running OSX. Between posts I'm doing the final assembly on my MiniATX PC with a 1080 card which will connect direct to my TV and be used with a controller - as much as Windows/Steam allows

Believe me, I value convenience more than your average gamer because my free time is incredibly limited but the need for convenience doesn't trump everything for me. Some games just aren't available on consoles and sometimes the games that are are just better on a gaming PC, or have benefits of mods or Steam sharing. Not always, but enough for me to sacrifice a little convenience here and there.

 

[Jay]

I can only speak for the UK but the Xbox One launched at £429 and PS4 at £349, but PS4 was also cheaper when priced in Euros too.

edit: seconds of googling shows the launch prices as:
PS4: US$399, €399, £349
XBO: US$499, €499, £429

So uh.. yeah.

yea you got me there

but it was also more powerful. So could say it was because it was more powerful that it sold so well. More powerful and cheaper, good combination.

when Kinect was unbundled its been cheaper since and only lead sales a couple times when it was extremely cheaper.

Just saying many reasons why previous generations aren't easily comparable as they used to be. I believe its a few reasons for the position their in.If they went as cheap as possible(not just sales) with the current hardware no guarantee it would outsell ps4.

 

[goonergaz]

They lost market share in the US and GB over night. Now they aren't the COD default platform anymore and the whole Bungie/Destiny farce didn't help either. There were a lot stupid decision and they *cost* MS.

Yes, there were/are lot's of factors to consider.

The 360 users spent more money on games than the PS3 users. They were also older and the XBox franchise was founded on the principle to be the best console for multi platform(PC games). It's not a money issue but price/performance.

But this gen XB also lack true exclusives.

If you really think these people don't have the money for some top end PC or don't already own one you're completely missing the convenience factor. I was a PC gamer until 2001/2 but since the original one I rarely played games on my PC because I dislike doing so at my desk where I already sit to do my "work". I prefer sitting in front of a big TV and relax. Sure I could set up a PC there but I'm just too lazy to deal with all the crap(Windows, noise, heat and maintenance) and experience the same games only less smooth.

PCs are forever getting easier to use so the gap isn't what it once was. Don't get me wrong, I don't like PC gaming as much because of the hassle but the gap is still much smaller today and forever decreasing.

yea you got me there

but it was also more powerful. So could say it was because it was more powerful that it sold so well. More powerful and cheaper, good combination.

when Kinect was unbundled its been cheaper since and only lead sales a couple times when it was extremely cheaper.

Just saying many reasons why previous generations aren't easily comparable as they used to be. I believe its a few reasons for the position their in.If they went as cheap as possible(not just sales) with the current hardware no guarantee it would outsell ps4.

IMHO there were lot's of reasons PS4 did well (and more importantly better than XBO) - as well as the above and the whole 'always online' debacle there are other things people should consider, Sony had the momentum going into this Gen with the PS3 selling more units on a monthly basis...Sony had also worked hard to sort out the 'issues' with PS3 (price/poor online/trophies/GUI during games etc). This gen it's like total role reversal except Sony still has the advantage of a bigger (console) brand and better (or rather far more true) exclusives.

Power is a factor but I'm sure it's just a small % most gamers will buy for their preferred franchise/experience provided it's not completely broken, as an example last gen I was happy to play the significantly worse RDR because I had free online and I prefered the PS exclusives. I had a X360 for exclusives only but hardly ever used it. I would say cost was definitely a factor last gen but this gen I was ok to pay for online because the competition did anyway - either way I would not miss out on whatever Naughty Dog or Media Molecule were going to bring.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

yea you got me there

but it was also more powerful. So could say it was because it was more powerful that it sold so well. More powerful and cheaper, good combination.

True enough and I'm sure that for the majority of console buyers, the decision of which console to buy is a combination of a number of factors - price, friends, availability, games, features, performance etc. eastman seemed to be of the view that a higher performance Xbox would be Microsoft's fait accompli whereas my view is that commercial success of past consoles does not support this.

If you look back at past console generations, particularly the PlayStation era (1996 on), there is a consistent correlation on price and commercial success but not performance. I'm sure performance is very important for some but sales do not support that being a sole dictating feature upon which success is guaranteed.

Personally I would be interested in an expensive ($1,000) high performance console.

 

[steveOrino]

I never understood the hardware power = success argument when there is no historical precedent that points to computing power being a significant factor in sales or platform success.

Consumers want low cost, support, and the ability to play the latest games. Everything else that comes with it is gravy.

Even if someone made some 600-1k dollar behemoth console, they would have to convince 3rd parties that they can sell enough of them in order to make software that would utilize it in a way that consumers would want to pay the premium for it.

The only thing I would say that is significantly different from generations past is the networking and locked down nature of the services make it so consumers who are interested in multiplay purchase the same system ("I bought it cause my friends have it"). How significant that factor is up for debate but I guess that early adopters would be paramount.