scooby_dooby
Legend
Lol, this exists only in your own twisted head my friend.
Devil May Cry 4 Going Multi-platform! (Xbox 360/PS3/PC) *Confirmed
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
Lol, this exists only in your own twisted head my friend.
Oninotsume
Newcomer
Speaking from my experience here in Japan I would say that as long as the PS3 continues to outsell the Xbox 360 in Japan, Japanese development companies will continue to make/port titles for the Japanese market. I think Capcom's decision to get their Framework engine up and running on the PS3 when it already ran well on the 360 and PC is proof of that point. Things like the 360 version of VF5 only in America, and a couple of other games coming up with the same release plan will also support this.
I know from personal experience that focus on 360 development generally comes from the fact that it was out first. One can't expect a company to sit around waiting for the next console to come out waisting away money paying employees to sit around. Regardless of when the development systems were available, it's when the consumer will be able to purchase the software that is most important.
In my case I saw Xbox 360 hardware quite some time before PS3. In fact we were beginning to wonder if it really existed.
Japanese publishers also seem to have intially had a hard time grasping the concept of developing for multiple platforms at once, but that's getting better. It saves/makes more money in the long run.
That's my two cents.
I know from personal experience that focus on 360 development generally comes from the fact that it was out first. One can't expect a company to sit around waiting for the next console to come out waisting away money paying employees to sit around. Regardless of when the development systems were available, it's when the consumer will be able to purchase the software that is most important.
In my case I saw Xbox 360 hardware quite some time before PS3. In fact we were beginning to wonder if it really existed.
Japanese publishers also seem to have intially had a hard time grasping the concept of developing for multiple platforms at once, but that's getting better. It saves/makes more money in the long run.
That's my two cents.
I completely missed that line!
Wow.
FYI to all: Analyzing a situation != "hating".
Thanks for the insight! Though the original shipping targets weren't that far off (~6mo) so I wonder why the delay in your case ... unless someone knew this date was false ahead of time.
Of course you quote me out of context and ignore the point or answer with substance. Your
:smile: twin who has to quote you with a meaningless replies really adds substance to your positions.Thanks for the insight! Though the original shipping targets weren't that far off (~6mo) so I wonder why the delay in your case ... unless someone knew this date was false ahead of time.
Big duh. Everyone knew Sony was never goiung to ship in the spring. The dev kits shipped en mass were not shipped until Dec 2006. HTF were they going to make games in 3 months?
Stand by this with proof or is this more typical hit and run posting?
I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think I'm incorrect on the matter, find proof. I'm quite sure I remember cell based dev kits being in dev's hands well in advance of e3 2005 and prior to xb360 kits.
Oninotsume
Newcomer
I can't speak for every company, but I think the case might have been that there was an "iteration" of the dev kit available, and I'm talking maybe 1 or 2 at best that only a very few priveledged people had access to. The security was extremely tight. It wasn't until way after the fact that most people who needed on got one, and I know we were priveledged in that respect.
Cool. Glad to hear from one of the priveledged few. :smile:
Oninotsume
Newcomer
touche!scooby_dooby
Legend
It was the only part of your post that was remotely interesting.
You have no point that I can tell, and to answer your question, no I did not mock the idea that dev's were dedicating less resources to the ps3 ports, I simply mocked your hypocricy.
Anyways, I'm sick and tired of you putting words in my mouth, it's a very annoying habit. So I'm pretty much done with debating you.
I dispute your assertion that PS3 attachment rate has improved to 3.6
I have two problems with your sources.
1. They contradict each other. You used one source to pull the 3.6 (actually 3.4) for the PS3 number then used the other to pull the MS number of 3.8. However, the MS source has the PS3 attachment rate far below 3.6 at 2.3 with both reports seemingly citing NPD figures from Feb. I find using such sources while ignoring such contradictions disingenious at the most and convenient in the least.
2. Your 3.4 source if Im not highly mistaken doesn't know the difference between tie in ratio and attachment rates in relation to av number of PS3 games owned by a PS3 owner. That report states attachment rates of 3.4 for the PS3 and 3.6 for the Wii while stating the previous month of january of being 2.7 and 2.2 respectively. Yet this
http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15503
refer to those numbers as monthly tie in ratios and not attachment rates. For the attachment rate of the PS3 to jump 0.7 games last month would of required the movement of around 1.3 million PS3 games in the US. I think you'll find that didn't happened.
If Im highly mistaken then I apologize. If not then maybe you should resolve any contradictions or inaccuracies before citing articles to build an argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
You may be right. The "tie ratio" is the number of games bought with the system and the "attach rate" is the average number of games a console owner owns, correct? That being said I think many are swapping attach rate and tie ratio numbers , so it's unclear unless an official source releases those numbers, which doesn't happen often. From your link:
So the attach rates are good, but no real numbers and the tie ratios are 3.4 and 3.6, which seems high to me (did they swap tie and attach?). The average number of PS3 games ($60!) bought with a system is 3.4 now? Attach rates go up with time, so the attach rate must be higher than the old launch numbers people are so found of throwing around. A similar error is the more recent attach rate being applied back in time and comparing to the PS3 launch.
It looks like the attach rate was 4.6 in March 2007 and 3.8 the year before. I would suspect the Wii and PS3 attach rates are more or less the same, there is no real reson (unless you conside the PS3 as a BD player only) they would differ by much.
Sorry if I linked a source that made an error, If I had time I would try to estimate the numbers and see if they jive.
4.6 number source: http://www.360-gamer.com/news.asp?id=336
I guess the bottom line is people that say things like "the 360 has a 5.4 attach rate and the PS3 is 1.6, bahahaaaa" are being misleading and dishonest.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
It's a well-known fact that the X360 attach rate is killing the PS3 and Wii attach rates. How could anyone argue otherwise? Seems kinda silly.
That's why publishers are flocking to the X360. Higher userbase for the next two years at least and huge attach rates. It won't surprise me at all at this point to see MGS4 come to X360 and possibly even FF13.
That's why publishers are flocking to the X360. Higher userbase for the next two years at least and huge attach rates. It won't surprise me at all at this point to see MGS4 come to X360 and possibly even FF13.
or perhaps, like you, they simply made a mistake
I'm not going to assume what the attach or tie ratio is for ps3 at the moment but I can tell you there are a few good factors one could point to if one were looking for a reason as to why that ratio was low in comparison to xb360.
1) BR player purchase (as you said)
2) Less games available
3) Less money available after purchase
4) Many peoples "HD Fix" was already fulfilled by xb360 a year ago
5) People expected more from the ps3 and have only purchased games which they felt were "worthy" of purchase
Not saying they are significantly lower mind you, just pointing out possible reasons that might explain the phenomenon if it did exist.
Tie in ratio is the number of software sold divided by the number of consoles sold over a length of time. Swapping attach rate and tie ratio number might be happening but its more likely its happening with the Wii and PS3 then its is the 360. The 360 monthly tie in ratio for the US is currently hovering in the area of ~8 and I have not seen anyone posting attach rates that high for the 360.
Tie in ratios don't exclude sales to previous consoles owners who bought consoles in prior months so it does not indicate the number of games bought at the time of sale of a PS3.
The attach rate was 3.8 for the month of Feb 2006 it jumped one month later to well over 4 with the release of Elder Scrolls and Graw and pushed over 5 with help of Saints Row, Dead Rising, Madden and NCAA football. Look at vgcharts and their monthly US figures, which are just NPD numbers with the inclusion of Canada. A clear indication of why the attach rates for the 360 is so high is all the million+ selling games released for the 360 over the last year. The number of consoles sold over the first 4 months for the 360 and PS3 is relatively the same, but check software sales over the same time and you will see a stark difference and the reason why the 360 has such a higher attach rate then the PS3.
Good info, thanks. I know I only bought one launch title for the 360 until March 2006 which was the big month. We don't really know Wii and PS3 attach rates for Feb do we? March will be more interesting for the same reason as with the 360;two big games (Motorstorm and Oblivion). I don't think there is any magic in attach rates, 360 owners are not a different species nor did the 360 have a great lineup in 2006 (Oblivion and GRAW in March and dry spell until X-mas). If anyone wants to compare the first year attach rates of the various consoles in 2008 feel free, I doubt there will be much statistical difference.
scooby_dooby
Legend
There's a fundamental difference which is the timing of the launches.
360 capatalized on HDTV owners lust for content, or at least that's my theory to explain it's high attach rates. In 2005 there was next to nothing to really take advantage of your HDTV, and I think that novelty is what led to such huge sales for games like PD0, GRAW etc. In addition, the novelty of the first exampel of next gen graphics, people were wowed.
PS3 is in a different position, most games are available on 360, and people are no longer wowed like they were a year ago, so it becomes a much harder sell.
I don't think it has anything to do with the peopel being different breeds, but rather the timing. If the situations were reversed, I'm sure you'd see the PS3 with the huge attach rate.
But then again, the $600 pricetag probably goes a long way towards reducing the amount of games purchased.
NovemberMike
Regular
I can think of a few things that would lower the PS3's attach rate. For example, one of the major groups that probably buys the PS3 is the hardcore group that would a $3000 rig if they were into PC gaming, and they probably have a 360 and a Wii and will only buy excellent PS3 games. That is only a hypothetical and only a single example, but there are a number of reasons the attach ratios could be different.
Similar threads
