All purpose sales and sales rumors/anecdotes thread next gen+

[Prophecy2k]

To be fair, the bolded part is pretty as close to fact as you'll ever get. There's absolutely no way that 160 million sold X360 and PS3 == 160 million different consumers. Nada.

If we look at the PS3 that sold roughly 80 million, I would say a not unsubstantial amount of those sold units come from existing consumers that upgraded their noisy console to a more quieter one (me included). That wouldn't exactly cut down the number by 50%, but I'd still think the number would be quite substantial (perhaps 10-20%). From personal experience - I know quite a few PS3 gamers who have upgraded just as I have, because the original console exhibit a failure in form of YLOD syndrom and the newer unit provided us with a much quieter, smaller and cooler unit. I wouldn't underestimate that.

If you subtract those buyers from the total of 80 million and assume similar numbers on the X360, you will have those that own both consoles from the rest. Then there are also those who have bought a console for other purposes (watching Blurays etc). In the case of the PS3, I wouldn't exactly think that number is unsubstantial either. I would think in the end, we might be left with a number around 100-120 million - just a guess on my part.

I disagree here with your analysis, but agree with the premise. As even your 100-120 million is not "no-where near" 160 million. Your premise is also using anecdotal evidence to support an idea that a significant portion (10-20%) of that 160 million console installed base is from repeat console buyers.

I would argue vehemently that that is likely to be far far lower than what you estimate as a percentage. There's simply no way that any significant proportion of console owners who own a fully working console, will choose to rebuy it merely because the new one runs cooler or is smaller. That's gotta be less than 0.1%.

Far more likely to replace a console are those who have their console break out of warranty. And I'd imagine that over an 8 year generation, pretty much the majority consoles sold in the first 1-1.5 years will have broken and either had to be repaired or replaced.

So whilst I agree that the 160 million consoles sold isn't the accurate size of the userbase, since there will obviously be some overlap in console ownership with dual console owners, plus some replacement to a likely far lesser extent, I cannot agree that (in Goodtwin's words) the active gamer userbase is "no-where near that number". 160 million consoles sold is just too high a number for that to be in anyway true.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I would argue vehemently that that is likely to be far far lower than what you estimate as a percentage. There's simply no way that any significant proportion of console owners who own a fully working console, will choose to rebuy it merely because the new one runs cooler or is smaller. That's gotta be less than 0.1%.

While we're pulling numbers out of our nether regions, I would argue .2% bought a second one to use as a plant stand.

 

[Goodtwin]

To be fair, the bolded part is pretty as close to fact as you'll ever get. There's absolutely no way that 160 million sold X360 and PS3 == 160 million different consumers. Nada.

If we look at the PS3 that sold roughly 80 million, I would say a not unsubstantial amount of those sold units come from existing consumers that upgraded their noisy console to a more quieter one (me included). That wouldn't exactly cut down the number by 50%, but I'd still think the number would be quite substantial (perhaps 10-20%). From personal experience - I know quite a few PS3 gamers who have upgraded just as I have, because the original console exhibit a failure in form of YLOD syndrom and the newer unit provided us with a much quieter, smaller and cooler unit. I wouldn't underestimate that.

If you subtract those buyers from the total of 80 million and assume similar numbers on the X360, you will have those that own both consoles from the rest. Then there are also those who have bought a console for other purposes (watching Blurays etc). In the case of the PS3, I wouldn't exactly think that number is unsubstantial either. I would think in the end, we might be left with a number around 100-120 million - just a guess on my part.

Pretty much my point, not to mention I am sure there is a respectable percentage of people who do own more than one console. When I say active gamer, I don't just mean someone who still plays games, I am talking about people who actively buy games. There is a huge number of titles to purchase on store shelves for the 360/PS3, and seeing as how on average each console owner has purchased about 10-15 games, then there should still be a significant number of software sales from 100 million active 360/PS3 gamers. Nintendo, Sony, nor Microsoft consider people who play old consoles to be part of the "gaming" market, when they look at a given usebase, all that matters is the percentage of them that will actually participate in buying new software. When you look at it from this perspective, it become apparent that the next gen market is quickly matching the previous gens software sales potential. Releasing a game a game on 360/PS3 at this point will struggle to sell much better than on x1/PS4, despite the incredible difference in hardware sales.

COD's numbers actually proves my point, they haven't really changed much since it became a craze. Like I said, people move in and out. If it was a steady progression, then Black Ops 2 and Ghost should have destroyed the MW2 and Black OPs numbers put up years ago, since the total hardware units sold continued to rise at an aggressive pace.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I disagree with all of that, but that's ok, neither one of us can be proven right or wrong.

Some arguments have lower credulity than others though, to the point that, though we can't prove an argument right, they can be pretty convincingly shown to be wrong.

To be fair, the bolded part is pretty as close to fact as you'll ever get. There's absolutely no way that 160 million sold X360 and PS3 == 160 million different consumers. Nada...

I disagree here with your analysis, but agree with the premise. As even your 100-120 million is not "no-where near" 160 million. Your premise is also using anecdotal evidence to support an idea that a significant portion (10-20%) of that 160 million console installed base is from repeat console buyers.

Fun with numbers! Here's another opportunity for random 'facts' - Consoles in a household can have more than one gamer. I surmise an average of 2.1 gamers per console. Ergo, the real install base for core gamers is (160M - 15M defects - 20M upgrades + 20 million Wii core gamers) * 90% due to cross platform ownership * 2.1 gamers per unit = 274.05 million core gamers.

Like I said, people move in and out. If it was a steady progression, then Black Ops 2 and Ghost should have destroyed the MW2 and Black OPs numbers put up years ago, since the total hardware units sold continued to rise at an aggressive pace.

Titles often see franchise fatigue, and sequels typically sell less. Later buyers won't game as heavily, otherwise they'd have bought the consoles sooner and gotten more out of them. I don't think gamers frequently go on to do other things instead though. It's not a hobby easily replaced. Older core gamers may have family or other time constraints, but one can't really replace gaming with tennis or reading IMO. It has a significant psychological value in terms of mental and sensory occupation and a low running cost while being easily slotted into ones activities. With a flick of a switch, the console is on and your playing. You can't, at the drop of a hat with a couple of hours free in an evening, host a dinner party or play a round of bridge with your mates. Furthermore, the appeal of games to us as kids still remains for upcoming kids. Heck, it's moreso as they even game at school on their iThings. The value we had playing core RPGs or whatever as kids remain as value other kids will have. There might be some issues convincing them to leave the tap-to-win rubbish behind and embrace a game with depth, but when they make the transition, they'll find the hobby just as rewarding.

Finally, there's also China and India growing as massive markets with massive potential.

I'm not really sure what the discussion is about any more, and I'm not sure what argument people were trying to prove or disprove. That the console world is dying away? I certainly don't see any reason to see the console space as disappearing in the next 5 years. The fastest start to a gen ever. Great software sales on the new machines. Console gaming's actually in a good place.

 

[Goodtwin]

Some arguments have lower credulity than others though, to the point that, though we can't prove an argument right, they can be pretty convincingly shown to be wrong. I agree, but in this case the only factual thing we really know for sure is the number of consoles purchased. Not how many were replacement units, how many people are simply done with game (this does happen believe it or not, lots of people lose interest at some point), or how many people own all the consoles.





Fun with numbers! Here's another opportunity for random 'facts' - Consoles in a household can have more than one gamer. I surmise an average of 2.1 gamers per console. Ergo, the real install base for core gamers is (160M - 15M defects - 20M upgrades + 20 million Wii core gamers) * 90% due to cross platform ownership * 2.1 gamers per unit = 274.05 million core gamers.

Titles often see franchise fatigue, and sequels typically sell less. Later buyers won't game as heavily, otherwise they'd have bought the consoles sooner and gotten more out of them. I don't think gamers frequently go on to do other things instead though. It's not a hobby easily replaced. Older core gamers may have family or other time constraints, but one can't really replace gaming with tennis or reading IMO. It has a significant psychological value in terms of mental and sensory occupation and a low running cost while being easily slotted into ones activities. With a flick of a switch, the console is on and your playing. You can't, at the drop of a hat with a couple of hours free in an evening, host a dinner party or play a round of bridge with your mates. Furthermore, the appeal of games to us as kids still remains for upcoming kids. Heck, it's moreso as they even game at school on their iThings. The value we had playing core RPGs or whatever as kids remain as value other kids will have. There might be some issues convincing them to leave the tap-to-win rubbish behind and embrace a game with depth, but when they make the transition, they'll find the hobby just as rewarding.

Finally, there's also China and India growing as massive markets with massive potential.

I'm not really sure what the discussion is about any more, and I'm not sure what argument people were trying to prove or disprove. That the console world is dying away? I certainly don't see any reason to see the console space as disappearing in the next 5 years. The fastest start to a gen ever. Great software sales on the new machines. Console gaming's actually in a good place.

For the market to truly grow, this is where it will be at. Problem with both markets is both markets will demand low cost options to have real chances for success.

I agree that the console gaming market is in good condition. My point was simply that when people talk about this huge expansion in the gaming market, and I just think the inflated numbers are more so do to very long life cycles, more so than unprecedented market growth.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My point was simply that when people talk about this huge expansion in the gaming market, and I just think the inflated numbers are more so do to very long life cycles, more so than unprecedented market growth.

Hmmm. If PS4+XB1 launched two years ago, would all those people who bought a PS360 in 2011-2013 have not bought a console?

 

[Goodtwin]

Hmmm. If PS4+XB1 launched two years ago, would all those people who bought a PS360 in 2011-2013 have not bought a console?

No question that if the PS4 and X1 launched two years ago, with the same hardware specs they have, and at the same price, that would have seriously changed sales for not only the hardware, but more importantly, it would have cannibalized the software sales on the old consoles. Many of the big games like GTA, would have no longer been driving 360 and PS3 sales, but instead been pushing PS4 and X1 sales. COD on 360 and PS3 would have been drastically reduced each sequential year after the PS4 and X1 launched, moving units to the new consoles. So yes, PS3 and 360 would have seen far less units moved in 2011 to 2013 had new hardware launched back in 2011, without question.

 

[Sonic]

I'm not sure XB1 sales will exceed 360 sales with the way things are going for MS. This holiday season will be crucial for them if they wish to remain competitive in sales.

I fully expect PS4 to exceed the sales of PS3 within 5 years. I think Sony's market will grow and expand and could one day even reach PS2 levels. They'll be releasing in emerging markets like India and China as others have mentioned. While people in this country might not make a lot on average, the sheer population that are coming out of poverty every year and gaining disposable income will be enough to sustain sales of PS4 in those countries. They have a strong lead worldwide and a weak lead in the US. If they're able to widen the lead in the US over the holiday season then I foresee them dominating the rest of the generation. I'm really looking forward to seeing how many millions they sell in Oct - Dec of this year.

I do believe next year we will see solid year over year growth in software sales for the months of January to May. PS4/XB1 will be more established with much higher install bases. This gen has been a long time coming and people are hungry for new games. My outlook for the industry isn't as dire as others are. I've got family members just graduating high school and they really want to get one of the systems for college. While they live their lives on the phone a games console is for that specific purpose of sitting down, relaxing and playing games. There is an appeal to that.

 

[DieH@rd]

TLOU Remaster PS4 bundle is officially confirmed for Europe, 430€
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3923/14331958567_d990784fbd_o.png

Strange that they will not push this SKU in the US.

 

[Phil]

So whilst I agree that the 160 million consoles sold isn't the accurate size of the userbase, since there will obviously be some overlap in console ownership with dual console owners, plus some replacement to a likely far lesser extent, I cannot agree that (in Goodtwin's words) the active gamer userbase is "no-where near that number". 160 million consoles sold is just too high a number for that to be in anyway true.

That's precisely why I estimate there is a much higher overlap than you seem to think - because the number is that high. Even in case of the PS2 that sold 155 million worldwide over the duration of 12 years - that number was only sold due to the countless hardware revisions the console went through. Sure, it was also picked up as a cheap buy by many casuals that probably aren't all that interested in gaming who later perhaps moved on to Wii, but I don't for a second believe that the market is actually that large.

I disagree here with your analysis, but agree with the premise. As even your 100-120 million is not "no-where near" 160 million. Your premise is also using anecdotal evidence to support an idea that a significant portion (10-20%) of that 160 million console installed base is from repeat console buyers.

I would argue vehemently that that is likely to be far far lower than what you estimate as a percentage. There's simply no way that any significant proportion of console owners who own a fully working console, will choose to rebuy it merely because the new one runs cooler or is smaller. That's gotta be less than 0.1%.

Less than 0.1%? I find that hardly believable, not when you read about many forum members here that have supposedly chewed through 3 consoles. This forum may be more hardcore in its members than the most average gamer, but gaming in itself is a rather 'hardcore hobby' to begin with. Don't expect any substantial amount of even the more average casual PS3 or X360 gamers to be anything like the gaming community you will find on a Wii or smartphones and tablet gaming.

Lets take the PS3:
It launched in late 2006 and achieved ~80 million sales since end of last year (a duration of 7 years).

11-2006 - PS3 launch
09-2009 - PS3 slim
12-2012 - PS3 ultra slim

Accoarding to SCEI, the PS3 sold in following quantities (Yearly breakdown)

by 03-2007 total 3.5 million
by 03-2008 total 12.6 million (+9.1)
by 03-2009 total 22.7 million (+10.1)
by 03-2010 total 35.7 million (+13.0) -> launch of the PS3 slim
by 03-2011 total 50.0 million (+14.3)
by 03-2012 total 63.9 million (+13.9)

The PS3 slim launched in late 2009, so the total userbase around then would be probably around the 28 million mark. By this time, many of the original units sold 3 years earlier were out of warranty, noisy and running hot. Accoarding to Wikipedia , it was also in September of 2009 when numerous reports started surfacing of the YLOD failure. I personally know 2 cases from my small circle of friends who suffered the YLOD failure (though not in 2009, but in 2010 and early 2011 on their launch European models).

I'd also argue that another factor is that the original PS3 was huge in size, much larger than the PS2 it replaced and quite noisy too. The noise gradually increased over the years and after 3 years of regular usage, a new cheaper, cooler and more efficient PS3 slim isn't such a bad offer.

I'm not suggesting that everyone with a launch unit (~28 million) ran out in 2009 to buy a new Slim - but that a not insignificant number of consumers did so during the course of 2009-2011. At this point, most units were over 3 years in age, and assuming most people that bought a $599 PS3 at launch are also what we consider hardcore 'early adopters' that would like have above average gaming-usage, I'd say it's quite probable that we'd see numerous cases of existing consumers upgrading. I did so myself, as did numerous other friends and people I know. To a point, the "upgrade" process are more by early adopters, than those who started gaming on a slim revision.

Then another factor is the media capability. PS3 at least was the first Bluray player on the market and remained being a good buy for considerable time. I know quite a few people that bought a PS3 for this reason, and some jumped in later when the Slim launched because it was small enough to fit and be a good media-player. These sales are especially sales from people who didn't buy a console with gaming in mind.

Then lastly, you have those that also owned a X360. I would expect there to be a bit of a crossover between those that own a PS3 and a X360. This would be less the case in the first 3 years, but more likely later in the generation as prices of both consoles come down and the Slim version offered good value (again; small, efficient and cool).

So how do you quantify them?

- existing consumers that replaced their old faulty/noisy unit with a slim edition
- consumers that bought one for its media capability / as a bluray player
- gamers that already owned a competing console (crossover gamers)
- gamers that only bought one system
- casual purchases that may been used at some point for casual gaming, but rarely still use it

If you count all these factors together, I'd say the 100-120 million number isn't that bad for active unique *gamers. Now thinking about the numbers and the analysis (sales up to 2009), my more accurate guess would be a bit higher 110-130 million. 20 million +/- might be high, but then there's no way to really quantify how many bought multiple consoles to those that didn't and who bought one for the sole purpose of gaming (and also buys software).

Of course Shifty is also right that one console can equal more than one user. That's logical. But using the same console, it's also likely that only one copy of the same game is bought (one copy can be enjoyed by an infinite amount of people in your household using your one console). Two gamers in your household wouldn't buy the same game twice. If they would, it's likely they also have two consoles to begin with.

 

[Brad Grenz]

TLOU Remaster PS4 bundle is officially confirmed for Europe, 430€
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3923/14331958567_d990784fbd_o.png

Strange that they will not push this SKU in the US.

SCEE has always done way more official hardware bundles than SCEA.

 

[dobwal]

The point that I was really making was the fact that people often look at the total number of units sold, 160 million, and assume that userbase is that big, and it simply isn't anywhere near that many. Between a high early failure rate for the 360, and to a lesser extent PS3, and people who bought one to play COD during its boom, but have now become board of it and have moved on to other things. The active gamer community isn't shrinking, I just think its foolish to think there are 160 million people waiting to buy a next gen console, there aren't. The core gamer community isn't that much larger than it was a decade ago, the generation just lasted long enough to see a lot more people come and go. In a five or six year cycle, I would be shocked to see this generation of consoles sell any more units than the PS/N64/Saturn generation.

People look at the total number of units sold because its the easiest and most relevant metric to measure.

There is overlap every gen based on factors specific for those gens. If you going to parse out opportunities for overlap last gen, you should do it for all gens.

Lets examine the PS2 era. It was cheaper to buy 4 launch PS2s then it was to buy 4 PS3s with one purchase at every major price cut. Owning or purchasing multiple consoles was a cheaper endeavor in previous gens. I don't think the console ASP last gen has even reached the ASP seen by the PS2 era in its the first 2-3 years. You could of bought GCs in all its wonderful assortment of colors like they were Apple TVs when it hit a $99 price point.

Furthermore, last gen may have benefited from a long life cycle, but I don't recall a gen that had a better first four year run. Neither do I recall a market that was as supportive to the 2nd and 3rd ranked consoles. In previous gen those were niche products.

RROD didn't necessarily help the 360 userbase number. It initiated a 3 year warranty and effectively led to a removal of a bunch of consoles that may have failed outside a traditional warranty and been replaced through an additional console purchase.

If last gen was fluffed with a bunch of overlap then it should readily show up in other metrics like attachment rates of software and accessories. But the attachment rates seem similar to the PS2 attachment rate across all three consoles.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Some good solid reasonable analysis here.

Dobwal also brings an interesting factor into the mix... attach rates.

Given the supposition that last gen saw a higher proportion of console re-purchases than any previous gen, either due to console redesign releases or higher hw failure rates, then it would have shown up in the attach rate figures for the total numbers of LTD software purchased for both PS360.

Since that's not what we see at all, I think it makes a very strong case for the installed base numbers being close to the overall active gaming userbase of last gen.

If i'm gonna speculate, it's my gut feeling that the hardcore gaming userbase is bigger. Even despite more competition for consoles from mobille and other entertainment pastimes.

We've seen growth in the console gaming playerbase every generation until now, and to me that partly due to the expansion of the market into regions like South America that were never historically penetrated. But I think the total consoe gaming playerbase in the historical major territories (outside of Japan) is still increasing, and for many of the reasons Shifty Geezer rather eloquently put earlier on.

Gaming is just one helll of a difficult hobby to put down, as few will ever find a replacement for it that is as rewarding and damn-near instantly gratifying.

More people start gaming at a young age, than stop gaming in their elder years. And the population globally is still growing (outside of Japan).

 

[Phil]

Dobwal also brings an interesting factor into the mix... attach rates.

Given the supposition that last gen saw a higher proportion of console re-purchases than any previous gen, either due to console redesign releases or higher hw failure rates, then it would have shown up in the attach rate figures for the total numbers of LTD software purchased for both PS360.

Since that's not what we see at all, I think it makes a very strong case for the installed base numbers being close to the overall active gaming userbase of last gen.

These are the numbers from the same link I posted above:

by           LTD HW sales   FY HW sales   LTD SW sales     FY SW sales      A-R

 03-2007      3.5 million      +3.5         13.3 million     +13.3         3.8
 03-2008     12.6 million      +9.1         71.2 million     +57.9         5.7 (+1.9)
 03-2009     22.7 million     +10.1        174.9 million    +103.7         7.7 (+2.0)
*09-2009    ~28.0 million -------------- PS3slim launch ---------------
 03-2010     35.7 million     +13.0        290.5 million    +115.6         8.1 (+0.4)
 03-2011     50.0 million     +14.3        438.4 million    +147,9         8.7 (+0.6)
 03-2012     63.9 million     +13.9        595.0 million    +156.6         9.3 (+0.6)

To interpretate software numbers is tricky, because it's a bit like a snowball system. A gamer who bought a console at launch will after 7 years be looking back at 7 years of gaming - and in that time will have bought quite a bit of software. Compare this to a fresh user who has just bought a console in the last year, and he'll be only looking back at 1 year of gaming and purchases. Therefore, it's only logical that any attach-rate curves, while growing, will slow over time.

Still there are some interesting numbers in here. What we can see is that clearly, after FY2008 (ends 03-2009) that software numbers didn't grow as much, relative to console sales. PS3 sales grew by 2.9 million sales relative to the year before (+13.0 vs +10.1), yet the attach rate growth fell by quite a bit.

That could be due to software, quality releases and other factors, but could also be due to many people buying consoles with less software (upgrades).

 

[Goodtwin]

People look at the total number of units sold because its the easiest and most relevant metric to measure.

There is overlap every gen based on factors specific for those gens. If you going to parse out opportunities for overlap last gen, you should do it for all gens.

Lets examine the PS2 era. It was cheaper to buy 4 launch PS2s then it was to buy 4 PS3s with one purchase at every major price cut. Owning or purchasing multiple consoles was a cheaper endeavor in previous gens. I don't think the console ASP last gen has even reached the ASP seen by the PS2 era in its the first 2-3 years. You could of bought GCs in all its wonderful assortment of colors like they were Apple TVs when it hit a $99 price point.

Furthermore, last gen may have benefited from a long life cycle, but I don't recall a gen that had a better first four year run. Neither do I recall a market that was as supportive to the 2nd and 3rd ranked consoles. In previous gen those were niche products.

RROD didn't necessarily help the 360 userbase number. It initiated a 3 year warranty and effectively led to a removal of a bunch of consoles that may have failed outside a traditional warranty and been replaced through an additional console purchase.

If last gen was fluffed with a bunch of overlap then it should readily show up in other metrics like attachment rates of software and accessories. But the attachment rates seem similar to the PS2 attachment rate across all three consoles.

In the PS2/GC/XB/DC generation, after 8 years those consoles had sold around 185 million units. In the same amount of time, 360 and PS3 sold about 160 million units. If we throw the Wii into the equation, then there was an obvious growth the gaming industry. The general consensus on these boards is that the majority of those Wii gamers have moved onto mobile and tablet, and are no longer part of the console market, and most likely only account for 20 million core gamers.

Perhaps we should not only look at hardware sales as a metric of the overall gaming community size, but also the total number of software units sold for the same number of years. This may give some insight into how relevant hardware failure and multiple console ownership may be. Were we seeing much higher tie ratios the prior gen? If so, then perhaps that's because there were so few gamers having their software collection ratio going 15 games to 1 piece of hardware instead of 15 games to 2 pieces of hardware. Earl pre 2009 PS3 and 360 units ran hot, so its not out of the question to expect a very high failure rate beyond 5 years of continuous use.

 

[DieH@rd]

Preorder analysis by Cowen Research:

Destiny - possible best seller for this year, highest preorder score they tracked in previous few years, possible 10-15m sales
Advanced Warfare - slower preorders than previous CODs, but potential for massive sales
Battlefield Hardline - preorders way below B3 and B4, more in line with Medal of Honor: Warfighter
Dragon Age: Inquisition - positive outlook, possible 3-4m sales
Nextgen GTA5 - preorders indicate at [high] single digit million sales
Assassin's Creed Unity - Charting above last 3 AC games
Far Cry 4 - strong early interest
The Crew - DOA

http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/27/p...gest-game-of-the-year-with-10-15m-units-sold/

 

[AlNom]

What's an Ordometer.

What does Halo MCC being #2 mean?

 

[dobwal]

Still there are some interesting numbers in here. What we can see is that clearly, after FY2008 (ends 03-2009) that software numbers didn't grow as much, relative to console sales. PS3 sales grew by 2.9 million sales relative to the year before (+13.0 vs +10.1), yet the attach rate growth fell by quite a bit.

That could be due to software, quality releases and other factors, but could also be due to many people buying consoles with less software (upgrades).

There are a ton of factors that attribute to those numbers.

As the userbase grows, the proportion of the hardcore/core population grows smaller. Lessening that population's ability to influence attachment rates. At same time, the mainstream and casual population grows proportionately larger and those buyers don't have the same appetite for purchasing titles as core/hardcore gamers.

All the while the used game market and all the methods of distribution of used by used game buyers grow more viable with each passing year within a gen. For a new 360/PS3 owner, there is nothing attractive about new titles at $60. Considering there is a wealth of older titles that can be bought for pennies on the dollars. Playing Gears for the first time in 2014 isn't that much different than playing it for the first time in 2006, outside of buying it at a fraction of the 2006 price.

If you notice there is an increase in sales during the year of the PS3 Slim, but the overall PS3 sales basically plateau and stay at a range of 13-14 million over the next three years. If anyone thinks the Slim precipitated heavy sales from current console owners, shouldn't there be a spike preceding a decline? How do you parse out the price cut to $299 during 2009 for PS3? Which do you think had the biggest impact?

When you look at the data you see wholesale permanent shifts with higher annual sales and slower attachment rates. But what you don't see is an anomaly that would normally indicate a temporary shift in sales indicative of repurchases due to a form factor change.

 

[Phil]

If anyone thinks the Slim precipitated heavy sales from current console owners, shouldn't there be a spike preceding a decline? How do you parse out the price cut to $299 during 2009 for PS3? Which do you think had the biggest impact?

Yes and no. I dont think you would see a spike since its unlikely that all early adopters would run out and replace their old launch units at the same time. I imagine it more as a continuous process and development. New unit comes out, sparks interest from new and old alike. Existing consumers might wait for further price drops or not be all that intetested since the old one works fine. Then eventually, when the old launch unit fails, or develops faults, they are more likely to upgrade to a cheap new slim than buy a different system all together.

Because the sales are continuous and its bought by new and existing consumers alike, you would perhaps see a reduction in growth, but still an overall growth none-the-less.

Actually, just as the numbers above suggest.

Unfortunately, it doesnt give us an idea how many upgraded, because as you say, there are many factors. The factors you mention however, i would think would cause a more gradual decrease, not an abrupt one like seen above.

The abrupt decrease in growth IMO looks to be due to many buying a unit for other uses (media playback, very casual gamers), and upgrades from existing consumers - and all the factors you mention as well.

 

[dobwal]

In the PS2/GC/XB/DC generation, after 8 years those consoles had sold around 185 million units. In the same amount of time, 360 and PS3 sold about 160 million units. If we throw the Wii into the equation, then there was an obvious growth the gaming industry. The general consensus on these boards is that the majority of those Wii gamers have moved onto mobile and tablet, and are no longer part of the console market, and most likely only account for 20 million core gamers.

What data is that general consensus built upon? Little to none at all, since we are so early in the current gen that there isn't any data to measure.

The lack of the Wii U's success can't gauge any migration of gamers away from the console market. We could have done the same thing with the PS3 earlier issues with sales. We could have concluded or come to the general consensus that previous PS2 owners left for Steam because it was about the same time that Steam started to take off.

Furthermore, Wii data shouldn't have to be thrown in, it should be there by default. Is that 20 million core gamer figure derived from some estimation of core Nintendo fans? If so, why should I believe that the Wii had no ability to convert casual buyers into core console gamers? You will have a hard time convincing me of that notion given that I, like many others, was seduced into becoming a gamer by a 8 bit machine producing 2D sprites.

Perhaps we should not only look at hardware sales as a metric of the overall gaming community size, but also the total number of software units sold for the same number of years. This may give some insight into how relevant hardware failure and multiple console ownership may be. Were we seeing much higher tie ratios the prior gen? If so, then perhaps that's because there were so few gamers having their software collection ratio going 15 games to 1 piece of hardware instead of 15 games to 2 pieces of hardware. Earl pre 2009 PS3 and 360 units ran hot, so its not out of the question to expect a very high failure rate beyond 5 years of continuous use.

I agree with you there as revenue only tells you how much money was extracted from the consumers. But, the current gen and last gen market in terms of software offering and pricing is nothing alike. The current gen is basically composed of nothing but $60 wares outside a few F2P and indie titles. Last gen has a huge used market, platinum titles, PSN+ free titles and free with Gold, which all have a downward influence the ASP of the software. I can currently extract far more value from last gen software pricing then I can with current gen offerings.