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

[Deleted member 86764]

Definitely your feelings about Destiny on X1 have proven true!

50% of all destiny sales in UK was on Xbox. That's surprising... considering the spread in EU. Or maybe not surprising at all.
http://www.totalxbox.com/81210/50-of-uk-destiny-sales-were-on-xbox-platforms/

Goes to show that the 360 is still going strong by getting over treble the sales of the PS3. It is worth clarifying this a bit though; the PS4 took the majority of the sales at 46% with the Xbox One at 36% - with the PS4 at 10% higher (~28% difference using the Xbox One as a baseline) .

Also worth noting that in the gaming world the UK is like a micro USA. Xbox sells very well there, probably similar proportions to the USA. The rest of the EU is much more heavily weighed toward Playstation.

 

[BRiT]

Without PS4 data I don't see how you can make that jump, maybe PS4 made up 40% and PS3 10%

Check out the destiny sales thread. We do have the data and it is how it's stated, Xbox one and Xbox 360 make up 50% of the sales (36 and 14). The ps4 and ps3 were 46% and 3% according to the post.

 

[Shortbread]

Check out the destiny sales thread. We do have the data and it is how it's stated, Xbox one and Xbox 360 make up 50% of the sales (36 and 14). The ps4 and ps3 were 46% and 3% according to the post.

This sounds about right. Good job for MS UK...

I mentioned earlier in this thread how US sales should look like.

And just as an FYI, XB1 Destiny is doing very well at GameStop. September we may see a 55/45 split between the two. Previous generation wise, I see XB360 doing better than PS3, maybe 60/40 split. But still, it's too early... no digital download numbers as of now.

 

[mrcorbo]

'Normalised' number to remove first months anomalous data

Why remove the first months of data?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Why remove the first months of data?

Because in statisticians terminology launch month figures are "crazy bonkers"

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why remove the first months of data?

The first few months are fan sales where you get a few million sales no matter what, and don't show wider general interest. After those few million sales, you could drop to nothing. To see the general market interest beyond the very eager fans, you need to exclude their sales from the stats. eg. Wii U's 3 record breaking start complete obscured the general apathy towards the machine shown by the market in general. If you leave the initial sales in, its average remained respectable for several months, but reality was interest wasn't there outside of the core fans.

For LTD that includes core fans, you use the full numbers. For an evaluation of ongoing interest, you'd leave them out. You'd also average across a time period like the last year (typical YoY comparisons) to see trends, otherwise the average of a product hides the current interest. eg. Let's say PS3 sells 50 million in 5 years. That's an average of 10 million a year. It then goes a year without selling a single console. The average has dropped to 8.3 million, which is only 20% worse. Yet in real terms, interest is at 0. Stats is all about picking the right numbers at the right time for whatever comparison you're wanting to make (and/or selecting numbers as evidence to support one's view no matter how unrealistic or contrived they may be ).

 

[mrcorbo]

Because in statisticians terminology launch month figures are "crazy bonkers"

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

The first few months are fan sales where you get a few million sales no matter what, and don't show wider general interest. After those few million sales, you could drop to nothing. To see the general market interest beyond the very eager fans, you need to exclude their sales from the stats. eg. Wii U's 3 record breaking start complete obscured the general apathy towards the machine shown by the market in general. If you leave the initial sales in, its average remained respectable for several months, but reality was interest wasn't there outside of the core fans.

For LTD that includes core fans, you use the full numbers. For an evaluation of ongoing interest, you'd leave them out. You'd also average across a time period like the last year (typical YoY comparisons) to see trends, otherwise the average of a product hides the current interest. eg. Let's say PS3 sells 50 million in 5 years. That's an average of 10 million a year. It then goes a year without selling a single console. The average has dropped to 8.3 million, which is only 20% worse. Yet in real terms, interest is at 0. Stats is all about picking the right numbers at the right time for whatever comparison you're wanting to make (and/or selecting numbers as evidence to support one's view no matter how unrealistic or contrived they may be ).

Under normal circumstances I understand doing this, but the 360 was horribly supply constrained during its launch window. By chopping off the first couple of months of availability when making this comparison I think you end up penalizing the XBOne for having enough units available around the launch to largely satisfy demand during the first couple of months instead of it taking 4 or 5. In this specific case, I think excluding the launch window actually presents a less accurate comparison.

Edit: Didn't see that Rangers had already covered this above, but since your responses didn't really address it, I'll leave this here anyway.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The first few months are fan sales where you get a few million sales no matter what, and don't show wider general interest. After those few million sales, you could drop to nothing. To see the general market interest beyond the very eager fans, you need to exclude their sales from the stats. eg. Wii U's 3 record breaking start complete obscured the general apathy towards the machine shown by the market in general. If you leave the initial sales in, its average remained respectable for several months, but reality was interest wasn't there outside of the core fans.

For LTD that includes core fans, you use the full numbers. For an evaluation of ongoing interest, you'd leave them out. You'd also average across a time period like the last year (typical YoY comparisons) to see trends, otherwise the average of a product hides the current interest. eg. Let's say PS3 sells 50 million in 5 years. That's an average of 10 million a year. It then goes a year without selling a single console. The average has dropped to 8.3 million, which is only 20% worse. Yet in real terms, interest is at 0. Stats is all about picking the right numbers at the right time for whatever comparison you're wanting to make (and/or selecting numbers as evidence to support one's view no matter how unrealistic or contrived they may be ).

There are some reasons to include the first month, however.

The X360 was more heavily supply constrained than the Xbox One. That means that demand for it will have carried further into the next year. Not having first months sales unfairly paints the Xbox One in a bad light.

Now, you also can't ignore the months after launch as that's more indicative of potential long term sales.

In other words some of the sales in the months following the Holiday season for X360 would have happened during the Holiday season (as with Xbox One) if supply had been greater. However, by the time you get to around April-May and later, you're likely seem more of the sustained sales numbers versus launch and launch supply constrained numbers.

You can see that expecially with PS4 as it was in a similar situation to X360 (albeit with far greater demand for PS4). Supply constrained leading to a few months where supply evens out with demand, until finally supply is equal to or greater than demand.

So the best we can do with available data is say that...

1) Within the first 10 months of launch, the Xbox One has filled a greater demand than the X360 (in the US).
2) However, the X360 has shown greater long term demand than the Xbox One is currently showing (in the US).

As we cannot determine just how much bleed-off of demand from Holiday 2005 affected sales in early 2006, we can't easily find a good cut-off point to say "this data is invalid for comparison."

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Check out the destiny sales thread. We do have the data and it is how it's stated, Xbox one and Xbox 360 make up 50% of the sales (36 and 14). The ps4 and ps3 were 46% and 3% according to the post.

It's also a bit of anecdotal evidence showing that more Xbox owners are staying with their X360's rather than upgrading to a new console versus PS3 owners who are likely upgrading much sooner.

IE - Xbox One take up is hampered not only by a stronger competitor but also by existing owners not upgrading nearly as much as the owners of the competitor's previous console.

Regards,
SB

 

[djskribbles]

I think it's more the Bungie/Microsoft connection, paired with the fact that X360 has always sold better in the UK.

Also in regards to Destiny XB1 sales, it should be noted, as it was in the other thread, that XB1 had the free game promos in the UK as well.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The X360 was more heavily supply constrained than the Xbox One. That means that demand for it will have carried further into the next year. Not having first months sales unfairly paints the Xbox One in a bad light.

If your goal for using the figures is to ascertain, or use as a basis for comparison, 'normal' monthly sales then then supply constrained months are equally atypical figures. CE devices are not usually supply constrained except during launch (or with Wii for the first year because Nintendo!).

I've not really been following the discussion over use of the figures but it's usual to remove atypical figures in this way or represent them in a normalised fashion otherwise they have an unwanted affects on averages and trend analysis.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are some reasons to include the first month, however.

So the best we can do with available data is say that...

1) Within the first 10 months of launch, the Xbox One has filled a greater demand than the X360 (in the US).
2) However, the X360 has shown greater long term demand than the Xbox One is currently showing (in the US).

Sure. My numbers weren't a replacement for Ranger's - just another take with a different focus. And importantly for me, it showed X1's long term performance isn't so far behind 360 as I thought, which the full numbers couldn't show me.

 

[mrcorbo]

If your goal for using the figures is to ascertain, or use as a basis for comparison, 'normal' monthly sales then then supply constrained months are equally atypical figures. CE devices are not usually supply constrained except during launch (or with Wii for the first year because Nintendo!).

I've not really been following the discussion over use of the figures but it's usual to remove atypical figures in this way or represent them in a normalised fashion otherwise they have an unwanted affects on averages and trend analysis.

The thing is, in this specific case, if you were to remove launch months and supply constrained months you're left with a really small sample size.

Ultimately, this comparison can still be useful, but the supply issues of the 360 over it's first several months are a variable you have to factor in when drawing a conclusion.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

It's also a bit of anecdotal evidence showing that more Xbox owners are staying with their X360's rather than upgrading to a new console versus PS3 owners who are likely upgrading much sooner.

IE - Xbox One take up is hampered not only by a stronger competitor but also by existing owners not upgrading nearly as much as the owners of the competitor's previous console.

Really? I don't buy that line of thinking. If it's anecdotal experience you're after, I was an owner of an Xbox 360 last generation and so was a friend of mine. Neither of us owned a PS3 and we both upgraded to a PS4.

Everytime I hear someone state that it makes me go "huh?".

Can we not assume that PS360 players might both be upgrading to the opposing consoles from their last machines? I'd imagine that both were doing it at a similar rate.

If you were looking for evidence that your statement is correct, it's maybe worth checking the numbers of online PS3 and 360 users in August and comparing to last year. I doubt that such a metric is available to us though.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Really? I don't buy that line of thinking. If it's anecdotal experience you're after, I was an owner of an Xbox 360 last generation and so was a friend of mine. Neither of us owned a PS3 and we both upgraded to a PS4.

Everytime I hear someone state that it makes me go "huh?".

Personally I find the swing from Sony (PS2) to Microsoft (360) to Sony (PS4) in terms of early hardware and game sales deeply encouraging as evidence of a largely independent (non-fanboy) market.

If you look at sales of cross-gen games, PS4/One are largely crushing 360/PS3 in terms of sales and this is surely a fair bulk of the core gaming market who have already upgraded. It's gratifying that such a large amount of gamers appear to be making their platform buying decision on factors other than because it has (or has not) brand X on the front

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Really? I don't buy that line of thinking. If it's anecdotal experience you're after, I was an owner of an Xbox 360 last generation and so was a friend of mine. Neither of us owned a PS3 and we both upgraded to a PS4.

Everytime I hear someone state that it makes me go "huh?".

Can we not assume that PS360 players might both be upgrading to the opposing consoles from their last machines? I'd imagine that both were doing it at a similar rate.

If you were looking for evidence that your statement is correct, it's maybe worth checking the numbers of online PS3 and 360 users in August and comparing to last year. I doubt that such a metric is available to us though.

And yet time and again, sometimes even in countries where PS3 generally outsold the X360, we see X360 software sales outpacing PS3 sales (not always, but often enough that it is interesting). That basically either means PS3 owners just don't buy games or that more X360 people are hanging onto their X360s.

As well, even when it does or doesn't outpace the PS3 software sales, the ratio of PS3:X360 software sales is more often than not quite a bit larger than the install base of PS3:X360 in that country.

Sure it's anecdotal evidence but far more useful than, "my friend and I."

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Personally I find the swing from Sony (PS2) to Microsoft (360) to Sony (PS4) in terms of early hardware and game sales deeply encouraging as evidence of a largely independent (non-fanboy) market.

Yeah absolutely, I don't understand why anyone would be so loyal to companies through generations. I admit to having a little bias to the console that I own, but my opinion is variable. If Microsoft were to do a load of kick-arse things then I'd totally be behind them.

Edit: I treat buying a console the same way I treat buying a new TV or mobile phone. Whichever offers be the features I want, I'll buy.

I had a Galaxy S3 when it came out, I didn't upgrade to a S5 just because it's similar, I got an HTC One M8. I couldn't care less about a fingerprint scanner, but better speakers appealed. Simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

And yet time and again, sometimes even in countries where PS3 generally outsold the X360, we see X360 software sales outpacing PS3 sales (not always, but often enough that it is interesting).

Please enlighten me, because I don't recall any evidence of this.

What we do have are very real numbers of a HUGE swing from Xbox to Playstation in its home territory. We can only assume that the numbers are even more heavily favoured to Playstation in countries in Europe.

Sony have also made public acknowledgement that they've noticed a number of gamers have come from Xbox. So while you're certain that 360 gamers wouldn't upgrade to a PS4 and are instead "waiting", I'm more inclined to believe that the shift from one to another is significant. So significant in fact that Microsoft are constantly creating deals that entice gamers back to them.

 

[dobwal]

Yeah absolutely, I don't understand why anyone would be so loyal to companies through generations. I admit to having a little bias to the console that I own, but my opinion is variable. If Microsoft were to do a load of kick-arse things then I'd totally be behind them.

Edit: I treat buying a console the same way I treat buying a new TV or mobile phone. Whichever offers be the features I want, I'll buy.

I had a Galaxy S3 when it came out, I didn't upgrade to a S5 just because it's similar, I got an HTC One M8. I couldn't care less about a fingerprint scanner, but better speakers appealed. Simple as that.

People tend to be brand loyal because they have established a level of trust and developed a level of expectation based on previous experiences. Plus brand loyalty doesn't just extend to products you own.

I doubt you would switch to so freely if these upgrade opportunities involved products carrying brands and manufactured by companies you never heard of. Its one thing to move from MS to Sony when it comes to console, they are well established and well known brands in the market. Its another to transition to other hardware solely based on specs.

Brands practically matter to everybody.

 

[mrcorbo]

People tend to be brand loyal because they have established a level of trust and developed a level of expectation based on previous experiences. Plus brand loyalty doesn't just extend to products you own.

I doubt you would switch to so freely if these upgrade opportunities involved products carrying brands and manufactured by companies you never heard of. Its one thing to move from MS to Sony when it comes to console, they are well established and well known brands in the market. Its another to transition to other hardware solely based on specs.

Brands practically matter to everybody.

How much brands matter can vary by type of product. I am very brand-sensitive for some items and for others I couldn't care less.