NPD February 2010

[makattack]

Why does the year difference matter? Zed's chart was brought up to directly contradict a certain assertion with data he's accumulated. We should know it by now, I think it's brought up every NPD thread.

I can't speak for him, but I suppose a possible theory is that XB360 owners, having had their consoles for a year longer, will have amassed quite a collection of games and may be less inclined to purchase more titles. Since the above table shows ratios of userbase:sales of titles, much like one would expect the 360 "attach rate" to be lower, this table just naturally shows that the 360 owners:title ratio is more diluted.

Of course, another possible theory is that more and more 360 owners have become multiplatform owners (like myself recently, having purchased a PS3 after the Slim was released) and are more keen to get more titles on that -- although, admittedly, I still only get multiplatform games for my legacy system.

 

[Squilliam]

I can't speak for him, but I suppose a possible theory is that XB360 owners, having had their consoles for a year longer, will have amassed quite a collection of games and may be less inclined to purchase more titles. Since the above table shows ratios of userbase:sales of titles, much like one would expect the 360 "attach rate" to be lower, this table just naturally shows that the 360 owners:title ratio is more diluted

You'd have to look at a rough average time of ownership metric as well. For that I would suggest again that the Xbox 360 has been in peoples hands a little longer than the PS3. If you look at the graph, the Xbox 360 has been selling relatively steady whereas the PS3 has had a slow rise in the rate of sales over time which skews the ownership for newer owners moreso than older owners.

@Zed do you happen to have anything on some of the major 1st party titles? Perhaps the answer to some of the difference is that Xbox 360 exclusives have a higher attach rate than PS3 exclusives?

 

[dobwal]

Multiplatform titles tend to have deeper userbase penetration on the PS3 versus the 360.

I think its really comes down to the demographic difference between the two userbases. I think the PS3 userbase is more strongly populated with gamers who used to be part of the core gaming crowd in previous gens but are more casual in their gaming habits this gen. A population of users where gaming isn't as an attractive hobby as it once were in years past.

Looking at that list, its dominated by the PS3 but look at the games that have higher penetration on the 360. Out of the 30 or so data points, the xbox only shows higher penetration 9 times. Of those 9 times, other than the COD franchise, the 360 list is populated by franchises exclusive to this gen (Bioshock 2, Borderlands, Prototype, Army of 2 and UFC). While the PS3 shows higher penetration of the other 20 or so data points, new franchises only account for 2 of those data points (Rockband and Batman AA).

Look at the first party and exclusive titles on the PS3. They are mostly dominated by newer franchises but haven't performed to the level seen on the new exclusive franchises on the 360. Yet exclusive titles like GT5 and MGS4 haven't had a problem with sales. PS3 show greater uptake rates with multiplatform titles because multiplatform offerings are indundated with franchises that stretch back to the PS2 and beyond.

The PS3 crowd isn't as interested in being as involved in gaming as in years before and thereby tend to gravtitate to franchises that they know from their past gaming days.

I also think that PS3 crowd is more interested in multiplatform because PS3 mp titles also benefit from the noise generated by their 360 fans. Multiplats are more likely to be indirectly marketed to those who don't keep up with gaming as they did previously. Its not like your 360 only friends are going to make you salivate over UC2 like they would COD, Madden, GTA4 or AC. Who talks about a franchise thats not on their system?

 

[dobwal]

One added caveat, I think multiplat penetration rates will grow even bigger with the PS3. I don't really social game and don't have a friend's list so paying for a wireless adaptor especially near $100 dollars is a no-no. Given that DLC at release is becoming big now with games, guess which console is going to dominate my purchases. Its the one with the built in wifi.

I just bought another 360 to replace my broken one (died in 2009) to play ME2, I was a little perturbed that I couldn't download anything from the Cerebrus network because my 360 isn''t wireless and I refuse to run a cable upstairs to my modem.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Why does the year difference matter? Zed's chart was brought up to directly contradict a certain assertion with data he's accumulated. We should know it by now, I think it's brought up every NPD thread.

And everytime it comes out I keep also pointing out that the larger the install base, the less likely it is to match a console with much lower install base with regards to individual title attach rates. However, attach rates for all titles combined should still be relatively equal. And obviously absolute numbers "should" generally favor the larger install base unless something is wrong or a game has a strong affiliation with one console or another. For example Street Fighter for PS3 or Bioshock for X360.

Interesting chart, but not terribly useful, IMO. Obviously other's opinions will differ.

Also a year advantage will additionally seed more consoles that may no longer be used as much (not talking RROD here as I'm just assuming most of those would be replaced under the retroactive 3 year warranty). Granted this effect may be quite small and insignificant. Only being able to speak for myself I have a launch unit that I haven't bought a title for in about a year now.

Again that's probably fairly insignificant, just pointing out what the possible reasoning they might have had for bringing it up.

Regards,
SB

 

[obonicus]

And yet others will argue that when the slim came out, all the new PS3 buyers were either fat PS3 owners rebuying or 360 owners going for a second console. We haven't seen a multiple-console ownership poll in a long long time, so that sort of speculation doesn't go anywhere. We have no data to confirm or deny it.

 

[Acert93]

Again, most multiplatform games sell just as well on PS3 relative to it's install base.

Yes, because it is a fact game sales have a linear relationship to install base

Not.

 

[djskribbles]

I never said it was completely linear, but it has a huge relationship and should be noted. Especially in this day and age where the two platform demographics are so similar (especially in the US). If you think otherwise, then agree to disagree.

Besides, that wasn't the main point... if you were to read the entire discussion, we were discussing why BioShock 2 performed so poorly compared to other multiplatform titles.

But thanks for the sarcastic remark.

 

[Squilliam]

Yes, because it is a fact game sales have a linear relationship to install base

Not.

Install base = number of consoles which ever were sold OR number of actively (last month) used consoles?

 

[obonicus]

Will we ever have the latter number?

 

[Squilliam]

Probably not, but without it inferring anything about the buying habits of the active userbase is pretty difficult. The Xbox 360 being more unreliable than the PS3 and being older ought to have a few more inactive past owners or people who don't use the console however thats somewhat balanced by people using the PS3 for a Blu Ray player which effectively means nothing conclusive can actually be inferred from Zeds numbers without that second data point.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Multiplatform titles tend to have deeper userbase penetration on the PS3 versus the 360.

I think its really comes down to the demographic difference between the two userbases. I think the PS3 userbase is more strongly populated with gamers who used to be part of the core gaming crowd in previous gens but are more casual in their gaming habits this gen. A population of users where gaming isn't as an attractive hobby as it once were in years past.

Looking at that list, its dominated by the PS3 but look at the games that have higher penetration on the 360. Out of the 30 or so data points, the xbox only shows higher penetration 9 times. Of those 9 times, other than the COD franchise, the 360 list is populated by franchises exclusive to this gen (Bioshock 2, Borderlands, Prototype, Army of 2 and UFC). While the PS3 shows higher penetration of the other 20 or so data points, new franchises only account for 2 of those data points (Rockband and Batman AA).

Look at the first party and exclusive titles on the PS3. They are mostly dominated by newer franchises but haven't performed to the level seen on the new exclusive franchises on the 360. Yet exclusive titles like GT5 and MGS4 haven't had a problem with sales. PS3 show greater uptake rates with multiplatform titles because multiplatform offerings are indundated with franchises that stretch back to the PS2 and beyond.

The PS3 crowd isn't as interested in being as involved in gaming as in years before and thereby tend to gravtitate to franchises that they know from their past gaming days.

Good post! Lot's of well thougth out reasoning there.

 

[Acert93]

I never said it was completely linear, but it has a huge relationship and should be noted. Especially in this day and age where the two platform demographics are so similar (especially in the US). If you think otherwise, then agree to disagree.

Besides, that wasn't the main point... if you were to read the entire discussion, we were discussing why BioShock 2 performed so poorly compared to other multiplatform titles.

But thanks for the sarcastic remark.

I have shown the statement quoted to be false many times. So go on repeating it and then pretend I was reading what you wrote. As a general trend sales are not "just as good relative to the install base." I have crunched the numbers and shown that attach per title decreases as install base grows--and even common sense (see huge games like GTA titles on the PS2) show this.

Doing the trending, no, at comparable install base points PS3 titles don't do as well for multiplatform games. There are outliers due to other factors (like brand identity, demographic appeal, etc) but those only reinforce the trend. Bioshock may be an outlier, just as Dante's Inferno has exterior pressures. But I do laugh at at HR impacting Bioshock sales (lolz) as really what is being said when one platform can handle a couple of handfuls of MAMOTH selling games (see how Uncharted 2 was canabolozing games per previous threads) but a game like ODST didn't... HR sold about 200k copies. It didn't magically kill Bioshock sales. If that is the case then Mass Effect 2, still charting in the Top 10 and AHEAD of HR, an Xbox exclusive, should have REALLY hurt Bioshock sales ...

Anyhow, the same theme gets repeated every month. It had nothing to picking what you said out of context, only pointing out error. Which gets continually ignored so sarcasm is about the only thing the error is worth dignifying.

 

[Toaddio]

I have shown the statement quoted to be false many times. So go on repeating it and then pretend I was reading what you wrote. As a general trend sales are not "just as good relative to the install base." I have crunched the numbers and shown that attach per title decreases as install base grows--and even common sense (see huge games like GTA titles on the PS2) show this.

Doing the trending, no, at comparable install base points PS3 titles don't do as well for multiplatform games. There are outliers due to other factors (like brand identity, demographic appeal, etc) but those only reinforce the trend. Bioshock may be an outlier, just as Dante's Inferno has exterior pressures. But I do laugh at at HR impacting Bioshock sales (lolz) as really what is being said when one platform can handle a couple of handfuls of MAMOTH selling games (see how Uncharted 2 was canabolozing games per previous threads) but a game like ODST didn't... HR sold about 200k copies. It didn't magically kill Bioshock sales. If that is the case then Mass Effect 2, still charting in the Top 10 and AHEAD of HR, an Xbox exclusive, should have REALLY hurt Bioshock sales ...

Anyhow, the same theme gets repeated every month. It had nothing to picking what you said out of context, only pointing out error. Which gets continually ignored so sarcasm is about the only thing the error is worth dignifying.

Weren't you also the person stating that Uncharted 2 didn't sell well?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

No, that was me, and for a while UC2 was not selling that well. It wasn't as front loaded as most other titles nowadays, but that's all for the better.
I hope ME2 does the same, currently it's well under 2 million as it seems...

 

[djskribbles]

I have shown the statement quoted to be false many times. So go on repeating it and then pretend I was reading what you wrote. As a general trend sales are not "just as good relative to the install base." I have crunched the numbers and shown that attach per title decreases as install base grows--and even common sense (see huge games like GTA titles on the PS2) show this.

...

I agree with you to an extent. But IMHO, the 360's install base isn't as diverse as the PS2's was and they cannot be directly compared, not to mention the PS2's install base is much bigger. The PS2 was essentially THE console that everyone had, so the demographic was quite varied. Probably a large percentage of PS3, 360 AND Wii owners own (or have owned) a PS2 at one point. Now we essentially have two nearly identical platforms, and the Wii. Hell, the games released on both the PS3 and 360 are nearly identical... the demographics between the two are essentially the same, which is why I personally think that this generation (especially in the US) install base IS definitely something to consider when comparing multiplatform sales performance.

Unless your number crunching somehow includes data from the PS3 and 360.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Exactly. Past gen, we had some of the X360 users, all of the PS3 users, and a lot of the Wii users all on the PS2.

But I don't really agree with the PS3/X360 users being essentially the same. I think the Xbox has more ex-PC gamers, and obviously far less of the Sony enthusiasts. It's a very rare case when someone who enjoyed KZ, GOW1-2, MGS and FF on the PS2 decides not to buy a new Playstation. These people are less likely to be interested in multiplatform titles IMHO, especially now that they're 5-8 years older and haven't got as much time to spend with games.
Also, a lot of them probably only got a PS3 when the slim was released because most of their favorite games weren't released before that and the console was quite expensive.

 

[djskribbles]

Well, all we can do is agree to disagree. There will never be any factual evidence. Again, personally, even if they're not essentially the same, I think it should still be a consideration as I think the demographics are at the very least in the same ballpark between the two.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Well, the HD console owners certainly aren't that interested in cooking games or dating simulators, if that's what you mean...

 

[djskribbles]

:smile: