All purpose Sales and Sales Rumors and Anecdotes [2017 Edition]

[Entropy]

You shouldn't count Wii as part of the same gaming market as the conventional consoles. It reached a different audience who then didn't care to carry on with subsequent consoles*. Compare this gen to PS3+XB360, PS2+GC+XB+DC, PS1+Saturn+N64(+other little players).

* One could possible dedcut EyeToy and Kinect sales somewhat from previous console generations for other non-console fads that didn't grow the market.

You're being trollish here. In real terms I guess Switch can be counted somewhat twice, independently, so the total home console market will be PS+XB+Switch and the total handheld market will be Switch and nothing else because there are no other handhelds. However, utilisation figures may one day emerge that show if Switch is used connected to a TV much or not, which could be used to weight the total console sales.

There is a fine line between being provocative and trollish.
To me it is crystal clear - any hardware+software combo that adheres to the console business model is "a console".
Its sales depend on how attractive that package is to consumers. Arbitrarily removing different parts of that whole in a sales discussion because it doesn't fit the narrative on hand is disingenious and serves to obfuscate the picture. Consumers are not a given set either, some drop out of consoles over time, some come in, the overall business will depend on both the merits of its own value proposal, and overall consumer trends. Depending on what you discuss, separating this whole into categories may or may not be useful, but I'll submit that it all too often clearly is done to fit an agenda or particular statements about the console business as a whole.

Regarding the Switch specifically, it will never fit the handheld-stationary separation of the console market. It is expressedly designed to adress both usage patterns! Someone who primarily uses it on the go benefit from that the few times they sit down to play Mario Kart/ARMS/Bomberman/whatever in front of a big screen. Someone who primarily uses it connected to the TV benefits the few times they travel by plane or train, or simply bring that particular super addictive game with them to bed. It is a hybrid even to the 95%-ers and by design, so allocating its sales volume to either stationary or portable is a fallacy either way. One which I think we'll see a lot of.

 

[BRiT]

In portable land you will have Nintendo Switch vs Nntendo New 2DS XL. In either situation Nintendo loses (and wins)!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is a fine line between being provocative and trollish.

Attributing POV to fanboyism is trollish, certainly when there's no narrative being sought.

To me it is crystal clear - any hardware+software combo that adheres to the console business model is "a console".

You can't track growth and shrinkage of the industry when a one-off skews results. If you want to sensibly track if the market is growing or shrinking, you need to eliminate outliers. That's statistics 101.

I'll use this example because it's the best out there regardless of company...

Should we conclude on Wii's sales that's Nintendo's consoles changed from a decline to a massive growth that'd spill over into other platforms? No. It's an outlier that doesn't fit the product model of the other consoles. Only if Nintendo kept the new model and the new audience would it show any trend, but Nintendo didn't and couldn't because it was a one-off. Same as Kinect et al. You can have a product sell gangbusters, or bombing hard, in contrast to how the general market is doing, so it makes zero sense when trying to follow the market to include its stats.

Its sales depend on how attractive that package is to consumers. Arbitrarily removing different parts of that whole in a sales discussion because it doesn't fit the narrative...

It's not a narrative - it's sensible analysis.

Regarding the Switch specifically, it will never fit the handheld-stationary separation of the console market. It is expressedly designed to adress both usage patterns!...so allocating its sales volume to either stationary or portable is a fallacy either way.

It's necessary if you want to discuss growth of the portable and console markets. Otherwise we count the handheld market as dead and the existing gaming markets are consoles and hybrids.

 

[wco81]

So no Switch price cut by Xmas.

 

[Entropy]

Attributing POV to fanboyism is trollish, certainly when there's no narrative being sort.
You can't track growth and shrinkage of the industry when a one-off skews results. If you want to sensibly track if the market is growing or shrinking, you need to eliminate outliers. That's statistics 101.

I'll use this example because it's the best out there regardless of company...

Should we conclude on Wii's sales that's Nintendo's consoles changed from a decline to a massive growth that'd spill over into other platforms? No. It's an outlier that doesn't fit the product model of the other consoles. Only if Nintendo kept the new model and the new audience would it show any trend, but Nintendo didn't and couldn't because it was a one-off. Same as Kinect et al. You can have a product sell gangbusters, or bombing hard, in contrast to how the general market is doing, so it makes zero sense when trying to follow the market to include its stats.

True that outliers should be excluded in statistics 101, but that is the lowest level course.... In a market with three players, that kind of statistical treatment is invalid. It applies to completely different classes of scientific study. Stochastical error distribution, reasonably large sample size, specific tests for being outliers and so on - a far cry from console market discussions.
The console market has, at most, three players, that share a common idea of closed hardware/software eco systems, with a royalty based model for content sales. Anyone playing according to those rules have some things in common, but not necessarily other. They all need to maintain a coherent eco-system for the development and sales of third party software for instance. But they can also be more or less risk averse, for instance. Representatives of Nintendo has several times gone on record saying that just offering "more of the same" is not their goal - they want to offer new experiences. That implies a bit more risk taking and also sales volumes and profits that will fluctuate. Is it better to go with a business model that offers -20% to 70% return on investment over a five year period (+-2s), or one that offers -60% to 300% return on investment under the same conditions? Over time the results of the first behaviour is more predictable, the second more profitable. Does that mean that such highs should be discarded in market discussions, when it is a conscious choice they are making in how to approach their business?
Being tied to a big screen or being portable is another aspect where the same business model tries to adress different consumer needs as well as a shifting market environment due to the explosion of the mobile platforms. What are the preferences of the current and future consumers? Will they regress towards the cinematic TV game experience or will they demand portability in their media consumption from their strongly established mobile habits?
Why are carry-over customers more important than single generation ones? If you are discussing titles like FIFA/Madden specifically, sure, but in the general case?

Things change.
The PS2 drove DVD as film media, yielding cross divisional benefits for Sony, as did BluRay for PS3. That generation however saw the dawn of streaming media which helped drive sales, and which Microsoft saw as their growth driver going into this generation. Which backfired horribly, and is even less valid as a sales driver now in 2017 than in 2013. The number of consoles released is small enough, and the consumer landscape around them change quickly enough compared with the lifetime of a console platform that all our data is outliers. How much was the sales of the PS2 dependent on its DVD drive? How useful is that data point for extrapolating sales data for the future? We can't care about the Wii because it approached the market well, but we can care about the WiiU because it approached the market wrong?

In the end, what the industry has to do is to try to actively drive the market where they want it to go. Or they suck their pinky and stick it into the air to feel where the wind blows and start making mobile games.
Extrapolation based on retrospective sales data is nigh on useless. Extrapolation based on doctored retrospective data most certainly is.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why are carry-over customers more important than single generation ones? If you are discussing titles like FIFA/Madden specifically, sure, but in the general case?

Stability. You know about how many people will be around to sell hardware and software to in the next ten years. One-off devices don't give you any long term future, so you can only react to them for their brief moment in the sun.

How much was the sales of the PS2 dependent on its DVD drive? How useful is that data point for extrapolating sales data for the future? We can't care about the Wii because it approached the market well, but we can care about the WiiU because it approached the market wrong?

The choice of what to include and exclude in one's stats depends on what one's exactly trying to follow/what question one is trying to answer. As a software developer, one would be most interested in total software revenue per generation. As an investor, one's most interested in hardware units sold and growth of the industry.

You made the observation that this gen the market is smaller than last gen, but for most software houses and publishers it's started off stronger AFAICS.

 

[Entropy]

Stability. You know about how many people will be around to sell hardware and software to in the next ten years. One-off devices don't give you any long term future, so you can only react to them for their brief moment in the sun.
The choice of what to include and exclude in one's stats depends on what one's exactly trying to follow/what question one is trying to answer. As a software developer, one would be most interested in total software revenue per generation. As an investor, one's most interested in hardware units sold and growth of the industry.

You made the observation that this gen the market is smaller than last gen, but for most software houses and publishers it's started off stronger AFAICS.

I also made the point that the landscape changes depending if you look at value as opposed to units, with value holding up reasonably well and even doing better in some respects. Which kinda makes sense - fewer people, who are more invested. It is a dangerous path though.

 

[Entropy]

Also, about the future of the Switch in sales discussions:
It was often remarked about the Switch that it may well do worse in the market than the WiiU, because the price performance of the device is roughly as questionable as its low selling predecessor compared to its stationary competition, and it comes to the market later.
Of course, now that it is off to a good start, it is often remarked that it may sell 30-35 million over its entire lifetime, a bit less than half the volume of the 3DS, because as a 3DS successor it is flawed mostly in terms of price-point and battery life.
As long as you evaluate it from the basis of either paradigm, it justifiably looks like a flawed proposition. The problem with that is of course that it isn't designed to optimise either role, it is something new. We just don't know how its utility will appeal to consumers over time. But what we do know, is that we cannot classify it as either a "portable" or a "stationary" system. It is designed not to fit in either of those two boxes, and splitting its sales and trying to put different parts in different boxes aren't going to increase understanding either, it is still trying to evaluate something new with a yardstick designed for the old.
I suspect that once the 3DS generation is finally put to rest, no more purely portable consoles will be made. As a hardware market segment, it will be a thing of the past. As a sales driver for future consoles however, I think portability will play a significant role.

 

[wco81]

Because of the price, you would think it would be hard for Switch to match 3DS sales.

One thing to buy a $100-200 game device for the kiddies. But $300?

It would take a lot of adults buying Switches for themselves to overcome the price gap.

 

[iroboto]

I also made the point that the landscape changes depending if you look at value as opposed to units, with value holding up reasonably well and even doing better in some respects. Which kinda makes sense - fewer people, who are more invested. It is a dangerous path though.

You both seem right on your points, joining them together the compromise probably runs along the lines of whether there is a business case to proceed forward or not. Using historic data will provide you an estimated market size, and from there you look at your competitors, free cash flow of customers etc, and try to figure out how much you can capture of that market. Even though Nintendo operates differently from MS and Sony, they will still go through these exercises, but include different competitors like mobile phones etc.

If we're getting into stats and econ, these companies are definitely performing product differentiation studies which should provide them the knowledge they need to move forward or not; thus that should answer your question on which method a company should take. For the general landscape of the console market, each company appears to focus on their strengths; For Nintendo it's mobile and publishing, for MS it's platform and enterprise, for Sony it's publishing and distribution.

 

[Entropy]

Stability. You know about how many people will be around to sell hardware and software to in the next ten years. One-off devices don't give you any long term future, so you can only react to them for their brief moment in the sun.
The choice of what to include and exclude in one's stats depends on what one's exactly trying to follow/what question one is trying to answer. As a software developer, one would be most interested in total software revenue per generation. As an investor, one's most interested in hardware units sold and growth of the industry.

Certainly. And this is perhaps a major reason why the big publishers hesitate to invest in Nintendo consoles from the start. The insecurity about the installed base and likely projected sales is that much greater. This hurts both Nintendo and the publishers. Nintendo looses some generic market appeal, and the publishers loose access to a different demographic of customers i.e. a real expansion of their base. This is where I think the big publishers would do well to reinforce the new platform, but if they don't, it leaves more money on the table for indies. Over time, that may grow into a healthier eco-system. That's a long perspective though, perhaps longer than can be justified.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As long as you evaluate it from the basis of either paradigm, it justifiably looks like a flawed proposition. The problem with that is of course that it isn't designed to optimise either role, it is something new. We just don't know how its utility will appeal to consumers over time. But what we do know, is that we cannot classify it as either a "portable" or a "stationary" system.

I agree and have said as much, I'm sure.

 

[BRiT]

Because of the price, you would think it would be hard for Switch to match 3DS sales.

One thing to buy a $100-200 game device for the kiddies. But $300?

It would take a lot of adults buying Switches for themselves to overcome the price gap.

And every game being $60 outside of an oddball being only $50. I agree, the price looks like it should be a large barrier to entry.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You're being trollish here. In real terms I guess Switch can be counted somewhat twice, independently, so the total home console market will be PS+XB+Switch and the total handheld market will be Switch and nothing else because there are no other handhelds. However, utilisation figures may one day emerge that show if Switch is used connected to a TV much or not, which could be used to weight the total console sales.

Does this really matter, though? If all "core" games that are typically played on a non-portable system are now also being played in portable mode does that mean it's not comparable to PS4/XBO? Likewise is traditionally portable games are being played on a TV like a non-portable, is that really all that different from portable use?

Previously portable games were generally different from non-portable games. PS-VITA at times had the same gameplay of PS-VITA/PS3 but that was the exception and not the rule, even on PS-VITA.

Switch changes things and basically blurs the lines between what is a portable game and what is not a portable game. And thus what is why should say people playing Legend of Zelda in portable mode be counted differently from people play it in non-portable mode?

And while, I understand why you would like to include GC sales but not Wii sales, it's far more nuanced than that. Both GC and Wii had the same type of players. Just that the mix was different, with Wii having far more non-traditional console players. But I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people that had a GC ended up getting a Wii. Is it fair to just discount them?

It's obviously difficult to fairly determine what makes up your "core" console demographic (those that are most likely to buy a console from generation to generation) and your non-"core" console demographic (those that are most likely to just get one console or skip console generations). As you mentioned, how should Kinect and Eye-Toy users be counted? Are users that primarily or only play minecraft different from users that don't? How would you account for those sales as they'd be very similar to Wii users. Is someone that only bought a GC for Mario and Nintendo first party games different from people that only bought a Wii for Mario and Nintendo games?

IMO, if you want to segregate console gaming purchasers, it should be by manufacturer and not by perceptions on whether they are "core" console buyers or one time console buyers.

So, it'd be fine to compare Sony+XB console past and future. But if you're going to include Nintendo numbers, then you shouldn't arbitrarily just discount an entire Nintendo console generation just because of the perception (real or not) that someone that bought a Wii is unlikely to buy another future console. That's going down a slippery slope. I know families that owned a SNES but haven't bought any other console. Or a PS1 and nothing else. Or pretty much any other console. The proportion of those users to ones who have owned multiple consoles varies, but it's not something quantifiable.

In other words, including Wii may not give an accurate picture of a certain type of console buyer, but excluding Wii gives an equally inaccurate picture of those types of console buyers. IMO, it's enough to make note of the fact that the PS3/X360/Wii generation included a greater proportion of one time console buyers, but to not include the sales numbers from Wii distorts the reality of the situation as much, if not more so, as including it would. There's no way to know if at some point in the future a previous Wii owner won't be inclined to buy another console even if it isn't in the current generation.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Does this really matter, though? If all "core" games that are typically played on a non-portable system are now also being played in portable mode does that mean it's not comparable to PS4/XBO? Likewise is traditionally portable games are being played on a TV like a non-portable, is that really all that different from portable use?

Previously portable games were generally different from non-portable games. PS-VITA at times had the same gameplay of PS-VITA/PS3 but that was the exception and not the rule, even on PS-VITA.

Switch changes things and basically blurs the lines between what is a portable game and what is not a portable game. And thus what is why should say people playing Legend of Zelda in portable mode be counted differently from people play it in non-portable mode?

Maybe you didn't read what I'd written fully? I said include Switch numbers with PS4 and XB1 for console sales.

And while, I understand why you would like to include GC sales but not Wii sales, it's far more nuanced than that. Both GC and Wii had the same type of players. Just that the mix was different, with Wii having far more non-traditional console players. But I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people that had a GC ended up getting a Wii. Is it fair to just discount them?

That's fair, to factor in a proportion of Wii sales into last gen figures. The major argument was to use realistic numbers to represent market growth/shrinkage rather than compare last gen with Wii to this gen when clearly the Wii phenomenon reached beyond the conventional market in a huge way.

There's no way to know if at some point in the future a previous Wii owner won't be inclined to buy another console even if it isn't in the current generation.

We don't know that any XB or PS owner will buy a console either, nor if a non-console owner will become a console owner. There's only so much info we can get from the data we have!

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Because of the price, you would think it would be hard for Switch to match 3DS sales.

One thing to buy a $100-200 game device for the kiddies. But $300?

It would take a lot of adults buying Switches for themselves to overcome the price gap.

And yet, when launch aligned, the Switch is doing significantly better than any previous Nintendo handheld. And at least up to this point, is lower but respectably close to the Wii's first month sales albeit with most of a month versus just 11 days for Wii. It's done better in the first month than PS2 did in its first 2 months. It's basically done better thus far than most consoles either handheld or dedicated.

We don't now if it'll continue at this rate, of course, as the data available is insufficient. Basically it's done as well as any console at launch that was supply limited for its first few months. IE - selling out of all available stock.

We'll have a much better idea once we've had a year's worth of sales data to work with. We'll start to have an idea once supply is greater than demand. Viewing sales numbers that are limited by available supply gives no idea of what demand for a product actually is.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

We don't know that any XB or PS owner will buy a console either, nor if a non-console owner will become a console owner. There's only so much info we can get from the data we have!

Agreed!

Hence, why I think numbers should be included, even if there's an asterisk denoting that X console might have a much larger share of non-traditional console buyers.

Regards,
SB

 

[BRiT]

We don't know that any XB or PS owner will buy a console either, nor if a non-console owner will become a console owner. There's only so much info we can get from the data we have!

I plan on starting a new movement called Gaming Charity. It involves stealing consoles from the rich (corporations) and giving them to the poor (PC Gamers) as they're typically non-console owners. Should those numbers be included in our sales talks?

 

[Globalisateur]

And yet, when launch aligned, the Switch is doing significantly better than any previous Nintendo handheld. And at least up to this point, is lower but respectably close to the Wii's first month sales albeit with most of a month versus just 11 days for Wii. It's done better in the first month than PS2 did in its first 2 months. It's basically done better thus far than most consoles either handheld or dedicated.

We don't now if it'll continue at this rate, of course, as the data available is insufficient. Basically it's done as well as any console at launch that was supply limited for its first few months. IE - selling out of all available stock.

We'll have a much better idea once we've had a year's worth of sales data to work with. We'll start to have an idea once supply is greater than demand. Viewing sales numbers that are limited by available supply gives no idea of what demand for a product actually is.

Regards,
SB

Maybe in US. Here the switch has being easily available since day one in local shops either the consoles, games (Zelda) or accessories (controllers). Totally different than Wii or PS2 back then.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yeah, it's interesting how the EMEA isn't terribly interested in the Switch.

In Japan, if Switch maintains it's strong sales it could rapidly surpass PS4 numbers in Japan. The latest MediaCreate numbers from Japan for Apr. 17 - 23, 2017 have 48,694 Switch to 15,222 PS4 and 4,112 PS4-P. It hasn't been close since the Switch launched over there with PS4 averaging roughly half of Switch sales. Of course, this is still the launch window for the device, so don't want to read too much into it, but interesting if the trend continues.

NPD April will be interesting. But for March it was pretty close between Switch and PS4. WW up until now it's fairly close between PS4 (including Pro) and Switch.

Too soon to say how things will turn out. But some interesting things could happen if Switch manages to maintain interest and sales. It could become the number 1 console this generation for Japan, despite coming out years after the PS4. It could potentially surpass XBO worldwide for this generation.

Forum users are predicting a fall-off in sales of Switch as they don't see the attraction. Financial Analysts are expecting demand to remain strong.

Switch is an interesting and apparently polarizing console. A few weeks back I read an article in a Financial journal where the author was into console gaming and had been trying to get his wife to game with him for years with no success. But once he introduced her to the Switch and Zelda, he hasn't been able to get her to stop using the Switch. It's just an anecdote and shouldn't be used to judge the market as a whole (especially if the appeal to some people was Zelda and Zelda only). But it does suggest that Nintendo may have created another machine which has appeal to non-traditional console buyers. Except this time without relying too much on a gimmick that doesn't mesh well with traditional console games.

I think there is real potential here for the Switch to draw in consumers that have up to this point primarily gamed on smartphones and tablets but are maybe looking for something more than what mobile phone and tablet games offer. It has the form factor and portability they are familiar with combined with a library of games that offers more than the vast majority of smartphone games. 3DS offers some of that, but has one major drawback when compared to a mobile phone or tablet. Really bad screen resolution that can often make games look unpolished and unappealing next to the sharply defined and clean looking mobile games.

I think PS-Vita could have appealed here as well, but it never got as much support as it deserved (IMO) and never really got a "killer app" or a stable of really compelling games that could have drawn in the more casual gamer. It may have also arrived on the market too early. It came to market when the smartphone market was still booming and many people were being introduced to mobile gaming for the first time. Switch is coming at a time when that market may now be maturing and looking for more than what smartphone games typically offer.

Regards,
SB